9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 975X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer, Senior Quality Assurance Establishment (Armaments) in the Gun Carriage Factory at Jabalpur, was suspended pending inquiry on 10th August, 2002. Under Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 amended by Notification dated 23rd December, 2003, Sub-Rules (6) and (7) were inserted. As the same are relevant to the facts of this case, the same are extracted hereinbelow : (6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rules shall be reviewed by the authority competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of ninety days from the date of order of suspension, on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purposes and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... force only on 2nd June, 2004, the application had been made prematurely in July, 2004 even before the expiry of three months. It was contended that since the matter was subjudice on account of the pendency of the Original Application filed by the respondent before the expiry of 90 days from 2nd June, 2004, the petitioners were unable to review the respondent's case. 4. Dealing with the said contention the High Court held that since there was no interim stay in O.A.No.540/2004 filed by the respondent, there was nothing to prevent the petitioners from reviewing the suspension within 90 days from 2nd June, 2004. On such ground the High Court dismissed the writ petition. 5. It is against the said order of the High Court that the prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... took up the Petitioners' case, it extended the period of suspension, which was again extended thereafter by order dated 8th April, 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that having regard to the above, the order passed by the High Court upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was liable to be set aside along with the order passed by the learned Tribunal. 8. On behalf of the Respondents, it was urged that Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, did not contemplate stay but abatement of proceedings before other authorities once an application was admitted by the Central Administrative Tribunal. By virtue of Sub-section (4) of Section 19, on admission of such application proceedings pend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this case, what is important is that by operation of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 of the 1965 Rules, the order of suspension would not survive after the period of 90 days unless it was extended after review. Since admittedly the review had not been conducted within 90 days from the date of suspension, it became invalid after 90 days, since neither was there any review nor extension within the said period of 90 days. Subsequent review and extension, in our view, could not revive the order which had already become invalid after the expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension. 12. For the said reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court and the Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
