IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1062 of 2009 1.THE STATE DIRECTOR,KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIESCOMMISSION,BIHARSTATE OFFICE,P.O.B.V.COLLEGE,PATNA 2.KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION, 3. THE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), KHADI & VILLAGE COMMISSION,IRLA ROAD,VILE PARLE (WEST MUMBAI). …….APPELLANTS. Versus VISHNU DEO DAS KESHAVA ……RESPONDENT. For the appellants: Mr. Dhanendra Choubey, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.B.K.Shukla, Advocate. 4 16.12.2010 I.A.No.5224 of 2009 The present interlocutory application is for condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid appeal. Heard. Other side has no objection if delay is condoned. For the reasons stipulated in the said petition the same is allowed and delay is condoned. The L.P.A. is arising out of an order dated 22.5.2009 passed by learned Singal Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.13764 of 2008 whereby the writ application filed by the respondent herein was allowed and order dated 2/6.6.2008 was set aside. In the said order the Chief Executive Officer, K.V.I.Commission, has passed an order extending the suspension of the respondent until further order. 2 However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has contended that originally the suspension order is not in the teeth of law and the authority concerned have got no power to extend the suspension order until further order and he has relied upon the judgment in the case of Government of A P. Vs. V.Sivaraman reported in A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1157. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the suspension order has been revoked by virtue of the order passed on 6.2.2007 by the Commission wherein it had been decided to revoke the suspension of the respondent and initiate disciplinary proceeding under major penalty against such person. It is further submitted that by virtue of the proceeding vide No.Adm.-I/ORW/9(157)/768 dated 2/6.6.2008 the suspension of the respondent had again been extended until further order which ended on 25.7.2006. Learned Single Judge heard both sides on merit and observed that once the suspension order has already been revoked and it lost its effect on 25.7.2006 there cannot be retrospective suspension by virtue of the order passed on 2/6.6.2008. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.5.2009 passed by 3 the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.13764 of 2008 present appeal has been preferred by the appellant Commission. The learned counsel appearing for appellant in the matter contended that there is power of revision against the order of suspension. But for a period of first 90 days is followed by Rule 8(5)(a) which reads as under:- “8(5)(a). An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this regulation shall continue to remain in force unless it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so.” He has relied on the decision in the case of Government of A.P.( supra) wherein the Apex Court held that if the time is not mentioned in the suspension order which would be deemed to be until further order. But, however, the respondent has relied upon the Annexure -3 appended to the writ petition stating to substantiate its contention that the Commission decided to revoke the suspension of the respondent by virtue of the order passed on 6.2.2007 and it is also contended that as on the date of passing of the impugned order dated 2/6.6.2008 there was no suspension as the suspension had already been revoked and there cannot be retrospective suspension. There is some force in the 4 submission of the learned counsel for the respondent to the effect that as on the date of passing of the order of suspension dated 2/6.6.2008, the suspension of the respondent is no more in existence as it was directed to be revoked by the appellant Commission. Under the above facts and circumstances, we find no illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Anil/H.R. ( T.Meena Kumari) (Kishore K. Mandal)