...

[2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 564

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DIPAK MALI - (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6661 of 2006)

DECEMBER 15, 2009

[ALTf'MAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]

Service Law:

c Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965:

"· 10(6) and (7) - Order of suspension - Not reviewed within ninety days from date of suspension - HELD: Order of suspension would not survive after the period of ninety days unless it was extended after review - Subsequent review and D extension would not revive the order - Central Administrative 'L

Tribunal rightly quashed the suspension order holding the same as invalid in the absence of its review and extension within the period stipulated - High Court rightly confirmed the view of the Tribunal.

E The respondent, a Civilian Motor Driver-II in the employment of the appellants, was placed under suspension on 10.8. 2002. Consequent upon the insertion of sub-rules (6) and (7) to r.10 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 as notified by Notification dated 23-12- F 2003, providing for review of the suspension order before expiry of ninety days from the date of suspension and that .. an order of suspension would not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it was extended after review for a further period before the expiry of ninety days, G respondent approached the Central Administrative ·- ..

Tribunal contending that the suspension order dated

~ .

10.8.2002, having not been extended by Review Committee, became invalid on the expiry of ninety days

H 564

UNION OF !NOIA & ORS. v. DIPAK MALI 565

from the date on which sub-rules (6) and (7) of r. 10 came A into force. The Tribunal allowed the application and quashed the suspension order. The writ petition of the Government was dismissed by the High Court.

In the instant appeal filed by the Government, it was B contended for the appellants that the delay in not conducting the review was not on account of any laches

_y on the part of the appellants, but in view of the pendency of the application filed by the respondent before the Tribunal, which was disposed of only on 18.8.2004, the c departmental proceedings having abated in terms of s.19(4) of the Act, the appellants were unable to take any action under r. 10 of the Rules.

Dismissing the SLP, the Court

HELD: 1.1. There is no dispute that the suspension D

-J' of the respondent was not extended. It has not been denied that the amended provisions of r.10 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 came into effect from 2nd June, 2004, and that the case of the respondent was reviewed on 20th October, 2004, beyond the period E envisaged under sub-rule (6) thereof. [Para 3 and 6) [567-

H; 568-A-E-F]

~ 1.2. The Central Administrative Tribunal rightly held ' that having regard to sub-rules (6) and (7) of r.10, the F review for modification or revocation of the order of suspension was required to be done before the expiry of 90 days from the date of order of suspension and, as categorically provided under sub-rule (7), the order of suspension made or deemed would not be valid after a G period of 90 days unless it was extended after review for • 1' a further period of 90 days. The High Court has rightly confirmed the view of the Tribunal. [Para 10) [569-G-H;

570-A-B]

1.3. As regards the cause of delay in reviewing the H

;,,

A respondent's case, s.19 (4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 speaks of abatement of proceedings once an original application under the said Act was admitted. In the instant case, what is important is that by operation of sub-rule (6) of r.10 of the 1965 Rules, the order of B 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, as neither there was any review nor extension within the c said period of 90 days. Subsequent review and extension

could not revive the order which had already become invalid after the expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension. The Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court. [Para 11 and 12) [570-B-F]

D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (C) No. 6661 " of 2006.

From the Judgment & Order dated 1.9.2005 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. (S) No. 2569 of

E 2005.

Harish Chandra, M. Khairati, B.K. Prasad, Anil Katiyar for the Petitioners. ~

Raj Kumar Gupta, Mukul Dubey, Sunil K. Gupta, Praveen F Chaturvedi for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. This Special Leave Petition has

G 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. 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)

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DIPAK MALI 567

[ALTA.MAS KABIR, J.]

in the Gun Carriage Factory at Jabalpur, was suspended A 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 : B

"(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 C Committee constituted for the purposes and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not

-.Y be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty dates D at a time.

• -\

(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules 5, an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rules (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after E a period ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days."

2. The aforesaid amendment came into effect from 2nd June, 2004, but as a Review Committee was not constituted, the respondent's suspension was not reviewed as required by the amended Rules. 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

' t of 90 days from the date on which Sub-Rules (6) and (7) of Rule

10 came into force, since the same had not been extended by the Review Committee.

3. There is no dispute that the suspension of the H

A respondent was not extended. 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 said order of the Tribunal was questioned before the High Court on the ground that while Sub- B 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. 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 C 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

,. .

D 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 present Special Leave Petition has been filed.

6. On behalf of the Union of India, it was not denied that the amended provisions of Rule 10 came into effect from 2nd June, 2004, and that the case of the Respondent was reviewed on 20th October, 2004, beyond the period envisaged under Sub-rule (6) thereof. It was, however, contended that the delay F in conducting the review was not on account of any laches on the part of the petitioners, but having regard to the fact that the Respondent filed QA No.540 of 2004, before the Central Administrative Tribunal in July, 2004, and the same was disposed of by the Tribunal on 18th August, 2004, during which G period the petitioner was unable to take any action under Rule

10 in view of the provisions of Section 19(4) of the t • Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. which provides that where an application has been admitted by a Tribunal under Subsectron (3), every proceeding under the relevant service rules H as to redressal of grievances in relation to the subject matter

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DIPAK MALI 569

[ALTAMAS KABIR, J.)

of such application pending immediately before such A admission, shall abate, and save as otherwise provided by the Tribunal, no appeal or revision in relation to such matter shall thereafter be entertained under such rules.

7. It was submitted that since the proceedings were B pending before the Tribunal, the Petitioner had no option 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 c 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

_y 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 E 19, on admission of such application proceedings pending before other Courts and Forums would abate unless otherwise

~ directed by the Tribunal. 4

9. Learned counsel contended that in the absence of any F stay, nothing prevented the petitioners from reviewing the petitioner's case and the explanation forthcoming for not taking steps under Sub-section (6) of Section 7 must inure to the benefit of the respondent.

10. Having carefully considered the submissions made on G , t behalf of the parties and having also considered the relevant dates relating to suspension of the Respondent and when the Petitioner's case came up for review on 20th October, 2004, we are inclined to agree with the views expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, as confirmed by the High H

Court, that having regard to the amended provisions of Sub-

{: A

rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10, the review for modification or revocation of the order of suspension was required to be done before the expiry of 90 days from the date of order of suspension and as categorically provided under Sub-rule (7), B the order of suspension made or deemed would not be valid

after a period of 90 days unless it was extended after review for a further period of 90 days. , -

11. The case sought to be made out on behalf of the c petitioner, Union of India as to the cause of delay in reviewing the Respondent's case, is not very convincing. Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, speaks of abatement of proceedings once an original application under the said Act was admitted. In this case, what is important is that by operation

D 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.

E 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 " F with the impugned order of the High Court and the Special

Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

13. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

RP.

SLP dismissed.

+ •