IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3512 of 2011 Date of decision: 26.09.2011 Joginder Singh Chauhan …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another ... Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): The petitioner, who was posted as Deputy Director of Agriculture, was placed under suspension by the respondents on 14.12.2010. The petitioner applied for review to respondent No. 2 of his suspension and to reinstate him, since more than 90 days had elapsed. The said representation was filed on 20.7.2011. The grievance of the petitioner is that his suspension order was not reviewed, since more than 90 days had elapsed. 2. Learned Assistant Advocate General submits that suspension order was reviewed on 28.6.2011. However, it is liable to be reviewed within 90 days from the order of suspension as per sub- rules 6 and 7 of Rule 10 of the CCS(CCA) Rule, 1965. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 3. My attention has been drawn to a judgment of this Court in CWP No. 4915 of 2010 titled Puran Chand Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and another, decided on 31.12.2010, wherein this question was considered by this Court and it was observed as under:- “My attention has been drawn to the provisions of Central Civil Services, Rules 10(6) and 7 as inserted vide Notification dated 23.12.2003 w.e.f. 2.6.2004. These rules are applicable to the petitioner also, as admitted by learned Assistant Advocate General. These provisions were considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs. Dipak Mali, (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 222, in which after considering these provisions, their lordships has held as under: “11 ……….. 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 become 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.” 4. The above decision clearly applies to the facts of the present case and the suspension order passed by the respondents, which is not reviewed within a period of 90 days was not valid and is liable to be revoked accordingly. 5. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service after 3 completion of 90 days of his suspension, that is, on 15.3.2011, with all consequential benefits. 6. In view of the orders passed in the main petition, all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. ( V.K. Ahuja ), September 26, 2011 Judge (BSS)