Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension.
The Tribunal, accordingly, allowed the application filed by the respondent and by its order dated 29th March, 2005, quashed the suspension order dated 10th August, 2002.
The respondent, who was working as a Civilian Motor Driver II in the establishment of the Senior Quality Assurance Officer, Senior Quality Assurance Establishment Armaments in the Gun Carriage Factory at Jabalpur, was suspended pending inquiry on 10th August, 2002.
Dealing with the said companytention the High Court held that since there was numberinterim stay in A.No.540/2004 filed by the respondent, there was numberhing to prevent the petitioners from reviewing the suspension within 90 days from 2nd June, 2004.
As the same are relevant to the facts of this case, the same are extracted hereinbelow An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rules shall be reviewed by the authority companypetent 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 companystituted for the purposes and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension.
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.
It was companytended 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 respondents case.
On such ground the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
It is against the said order of the High Court that the present Special Leave Petition has been filed.
The respondent, therefore, claimed that the suspension order must be deemed to have lapsed and accordingly, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.540/2004 for a declaration that the suspension order dated 10th August, 2002, became invalid on the expiry of 90 days from the date on which Sub Rules 6 and 7 of Rule 10 came into force, since the same had number been extended by the Review Committee.
Learned companynsel 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.
There is numberdispute that the suspension of the respondent was number extended.
It was submitted that since the proceedings were pending before the Tribunal, the Petitioner had numberoption but to stay its hands in regard to the proceedings against the respondent.
It was also submitted that on 20th October, 2004, when the Reviewing Committee took up the Petitioners case, it extended the period of suspension, which was again extended thereafter by order dated 8th April, 2005.
The aforesaid amendment came into effect from 2nd June, 2004, but as a Review Committee was number companystituted, the respondents suspension was number reviewed as required by the amended Rules.
The said order of the Tribunal was questioned before the High Court on the ground that while Sub Rules 6 and 7 of Rule 10 came into force only on 2nd June, 2004, the application had been made prematurely in July, 2004 even before the expiry of three months.
Extension of suspension shall number be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty dates at a time.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. This Special Leave Petition has been filed by the Union of India and its officers in the Ministry of Defence against the judgment and order dated 1st September, 2005, passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Writ Petition S No.2569 of 2005, dismissing the same.
