1. The prayer of the petitioner in the present writ petition is for quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 01.02.2023 (Annexure P-31) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in O.A No.695 of 2022, whereby claim of the petitioner for reinstatement, has been rejected. Further, petitioner is asking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to allow him to join service as the suspension orders dated 26.02.2019 (Annexure P-3), 20.11.2020 (Annexure P-17) and 22.03.2021 (Annexure P-18) stand revoked in the light of sub clause (8) of Rule 3 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 1969 Rules) which specifically provides that an order of suspension has to be reviewed by the concerned Review TRIPTI SAINI 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -2- Committee within a period of 60 days from the date of its issuance, failing which the suspension order shall stand revoked with effect from the date period of 60 days has been completed. Further, the extension order dated 20.11.2020 (Annexure P-16) passed by respondent no.3 also stands revoked in the light of the fact that the same has been issued after a period of 632 days of the initial order of suspension, which is contrary to the concerned Service Rules, as the suspension order dated 26.02.2019 (Annexure P-3) which was sought to be extended, already stood revoked.

Written Submissions of learned counsel for petitioner

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends as under:-

3. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record the following judgments:-

2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

4. State of Haryana Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors. (2009) SCC Online P&H 4388 Suspension order under Rule 3(3) cannot continue beyond limit prescribed under Rule 3(8).

5. M.Kalaivanan Vs. Government of India & Ors. 1999 7,8,9 SCC OnLine Mad.984

6. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Purushottam Sharma (WP No.16799 of 2022 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh) Officers similarly placed as the Petitioner against whom criminal proceedings in the same FIR's and have been granted relief by this Hon'ble Court against suspension

7. Bikramjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab (CWP No.11395 of 2020)

8. Paramjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab (CWP No.11824 of 2020)

9. Parminder Singh Batth Vs. State of Punjab (CWP-

3093 of 2023) Written Submissions of learned counsel for respondents no.3 & 4/State

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents no.3 and 4/State contends as under:-

view of the fact that as far as the order dated 20.11.2020 (P-16) is concerned, it has been wrongly mentioned by the petitioner as an extension order but, the perusal of the same would show that this is an order passed by invoking Rule 3 (3) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 by partly modifying the order of the State Government dated 26.02.2019 (P-3).

2. That second suspension order was passed on 20.11.2020 is with reference to FIR No. 130 dated 21.10.2015 whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 26.09.2020.

3. That the third suspension order was passed with reference to FIR No. 147 dated 06.11.2020 whereby the petitioner was to be under suspension with immediate effect

4. That the perusal of the above referred orders would clearly show that the suspension orders were passed in the first case initially with reference to Rule 3(2) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, but thereafter, vide order dated 20.11.2020, Rule 3(3) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 was invoked and the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 18.02.2019. The 1st suspension order was passed with reference to FIR No. 129 dated 07.08.2018. As far as, the specific order of suspension is concerned namely dated 20.11.2020 which was passed with reference to FIR No. 130 dated 21.10.2015 was with reference to Rule 3(3) of the said rules and the third suspension order dated 22.03.2021 was also passed by invoking the provisions of Rule 3(3) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.

5. It would be relevant to reproduce here the Rule 3(3) of the All India TRIPTI SAINI Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969:- 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

6. That the submission of the petitioner substantially was that the provisions of 3(8) would be applicable and would also govern the provisions of Rule 3(3) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. The submission of the respondent-State on the other hand is that Rule 3(8) cannot control the provisions of Rule 3(3) since both are the sub rules of Rule 3 and have to exist independently. The perusal of Rule 3 would show that the member of the Service in respect of, or against, whom any investigation, enquiry "or trial" relating to a criminal charge is pending may, at the discretion of the Government, be placed under suspension until the termination of all proceedings relating to that charge. Therefore, if the powers given under Rule 3(3) are invoked then the suspension can continue until the termination of all the proceedings relating to that charge. Admittedly, the criminal proceedings with respect to the FIR No. 129 dated 07.08.2018; FIR No. 130 dated 21.10.2015 and FIR No. 147 dated 06.11.2020 are pending under trial and therefore, in view of the provisions of Rule 3(3), suspension can be kept continued until the termination of all the proceedings relating to that charge.

TRIPTI SAINI

It is submitted that if the provisions of Rule 3(8) are made applicable 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -7- to Rule 3(3) then Rule 3(3) would become meaningless and otiose. Thus, the period mentioned under Rule 3(8) cannot be applied to Rule 3(3) also. The very purpose of framing of Rule 3(3) would stand defeated if the period mentioned in Rule 3(8) is made applicable to Rule 3(3) also. If the intention of the framers of these rules was to make Rule 3(3) subservient to Rule 3(8) it could have been mentioned in the Rule 3(3) itself as has been mentioned in Rule 3(7) (b) which for the sake of relevance is reproduced hereinbelow:-

7. Therefore, it is clear that the Rule framers did not intend to make Rule 3(3) as subservient to Rule 3(8) otherwise they could have used the expression "subject to sub-rule 3(8), in Rule 3(3) also as used in Rule 3(7)(b).

It is submitted that the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India & another reported as (2015) 7 SCC 291 does not deal with Rule 3(3) of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.

8. That as far as, the provisions of Rule 3(1B) are concerned it would be relevant to mention here that the same has been made with reference to the disciplinary proceedings only and not with respect to the criminal TRIPTI SAINI proceedings for which the clear reference has been made under Rule 3(3).

This is so because the provisions of Rule 3(1B) do not mention criminal proceedings or pendency of a trial at all and therefore, the interpretation of Rule 3(3) cannot be controlled by the provisions of Rule 3(1B).

9. It is submitted that expression which has been used in the said sub- rule 1(B) is the "Inquiry" but there is no reference to "investigation" or "trial". This would further be clear by reading the second proviso to sub-rule 3(1(B)) which provides that the period during which "the disciplinary proceedings" remain stayed due to the order of the court of law shall be excluded from the limit of one year. In other words, the use of the expression period under Rule 1(B) refers to disciplinary proceedings only and not applicable to criminal proceedings.

10. That as far as, the amended procedure (Annexure P-22 of the writ petition) to be followed for suspension of All India Service employee is concerned, the same deals with Rule 3 but does not cause any modification of Rule 3(3). In other words, the said procedure would be applicable with reference to the disciplinary proceedings only and not with respect to the criminal proceedings which have been specifically mentioned under Rule 3(3).

11. That if the period mentioned in Rule 3(8) is made applicable to Rule 3(3) then the said sub-rule 3 of Rule 3 would become otiose, but, on the other hand, if the Rule 3(3) stands independently and made applicable in the case of pendency of criminal proceedings and the trial, Rule 3(8) does not become otiose, and, both the provisions would exist and can be made applicable by keeping in mind that sub- rule 3 of Rule 3 is an exception only.

TRIPTI SAINI

12. That the law relating to harmonious interpretation is clear and all that 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -9- interpretation is to be avoided which would make a certain provision as a dead letter. The law is also settled that no words can be added or substituted by the court of law to change the meaning of the words which otherwise have been specifically provided under the particular provision. In other words, once the provisions of Rule 3(3) specifically provide for continuation of suspension "until the termination of proceedings relating to that charge"

13. That where there is a general provision and special provision, then special provision would always prevail and the effect of the special provision cannot be curtailed by the contents of the general provision. Rule 3(3) is a special provision and therefore, its effect cannot be curtailed by application of the contents of Rule 3(8). It would be relevant to refer here the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sultana Begum Vs. Prem Chand Jain reported in 1997 AIR (Supreme Court) 1006 and para 20 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

14. That the law is settled that a different meaning cannot be given to a provision merely because it is onerous or may cause hardship to the litigant.

15. That it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Allahabad bank Vs. Deepak Kumar Bhola reported in 1997 (4) SCC I and the para 12, 13 and 14 of the said judgment is as follows:-

16. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of A.K.K. Nambiar Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 1970 SC 652 has held as follows:-

xxxxxx TRIPTI SAINI (3) A member of the Service in respect of, or against whom, an 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -12- investigation, inquiry or trial relating to a criminal charge is pending may, at the discretion of the Government under which he is serving, be placed under suspension until the termination of all proceedings relating to that charge, if the charge is connected with his position as a Government servant or is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or involves moral turpitude".

10. ........The facts are that there was an investigation and the trial is awaiting relating to a criminal charge against the appellant. The order of suspension has to be read in the context of the entire case and combination of circumstances. This order indicates that the Government applied its mind to the allegations, the enquiries and the circumstances of the case. The appellant has failed to establish that the Government acted mala fide. There is no allegation against any particular officer of the Government of India about acting mala fide. The order of suspension was made under sub-rule (3) and does not suffer from any vice of infringement of Rule 7."

17. That on the question of continuity of suspension with reference to criminal proceedings and deemed suspension on arrest, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajiv Kumar reported in 2003(6) SCC 516 has held as follows:-

EXPLANATION-The period of forty-eight hours referred to in clause (b) of this subrule shall be computed from the TRIPTI SAINI commencement of the imprisonment after the conviction and for 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -14- this purpose, intermittent periods of imprisonment, if any, shall be taken into account.

xxxxxx (5)(a) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so. 5(b) Where a Government servant is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended (whether in connection with any disciplinary proceeding or otherwise), and any other disciplinary proceeding is commenced against him during the continuance of that suspension, the authority competent to place him under suspension may, for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, direct that the Government servant shall continue to be under suspension until the termination of all or any of such proceedings.

5(c) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may at any time be modified or revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate."

11. Rule 10(2) is a deemed provision and creates a legal fiction. A bare reading of the provision shows that an actual order is not required to be passed. That is deemed to have been passed by operation of the legal fiction. It has as much efficacy, force and operation as an order otherwise specifically passed under other provisions. It does not speak of any period of its TRIPTI SAINI effectiveness. Rules 10(3) and 10(4) operate conceptually in 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -15- different situations and need specific provisions separately on account of interpretation of an order of Court of law or an order passed by the Appellate or reviewing authority and the natural consequences inevitably flowing from such orders. Great emphasis is laid on the expressions "until further orders"

2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -17-

18. That no mala fide has been alleged by the petitioner against anyone nor anyone has been impleaded as a party to justify any allegation of mala fide. Therefore, the exercise of discretion by the competent authority was in accordance with the provisions of law, and, no fault can be found with the exercise of discretion which was validly exercised by invoking the provisions of Rule 3(3) of the Rules. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of A.K.K. Nambiar (supra) wherein it has been held in para 10 as follows:-

19. That the petitioner has not challenged the departmental disciplinary proceedings nor the delay in the prosecution of criminal trial because for that purpose the petitioner has separate remedies available to him under the Code of Criminal Procedure which he could have invoked in accordance with law. But mere delay in the disciplinary proceedings or the criminal trial cannot be a ground for revocation of the order of suspension when the order has been passed in view of the provisions of Rule 3(3) of the Rules. On the question of delay in the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings or criminal proceedings it would be worthwhile to refer here the judgment of the TRIPTI SAINI Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Rajiv Kumar as 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -18- reported in 2003 (6) Supreme Court Cases 516 and para 26 of the said judgment held as follow:-

Further, in para 29 of the said judgment , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-

In the present case, the authorities felt that in view of the pendency of the various criminal trials with reference to three FIRs (already referred to above ) the invocation of Rule 3(3) was justified wherein it has been specifically provided that the officer may be placed under suspension "until the termination of all proceedings relating to that charge". Further, in para 31 of the said judgment , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-

20. That in the short reply filed by the respondent No.1 (Union of India) dated 11.09.2023, it has been stated in the para 13 that:

21. That the petitioner has not challenged the vires of Rule 3(3) and since that rule is an exception to the general provisions of Rule 3, the said sub-rule 3 being an exception, has to prevail despite the general provision providing otherwise. It is also a settled law that an exception is made for a specific purpose and carved out the events covered under the other general provisions. Therefore, the provisions of Rule 3(8) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 cannot be permitted to dilute the specific and explicit provisions of Rule 3(3), and, therefore, the orders of suspension passed against the petitioner have been validly passed by the competent authority by invoking the provisions of Rule 3(3), and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for respondents no.3 and 4/State relied upon the following judgments:-

2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the whole record, we conclude as under:-

7. A perusal of the petition shows that the petitioner received a Gallantry Award vide notification dated 10.7.1995 which is placed on record as Annexure P- 1 with the petition, which shows the courage and devotion of petitioner towards his duties.

8. The relevant rules applicable in case of petitioner are The All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 Rules.

9. Case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Deputy Superintendant of Police. Thereafter he was inducted to Indian Police Service in the year 1995. On 13.10.2015 certain protestors assembled to place Dharna at Kotkapura after hearing incidence of sacrilege of Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. On 14.10.2015, on the orders of State Government, the police gathered around the protesters and tried to disperse them by using mild lathi charge and water cannons. The protest turned violent and the Sub- Divisional Magistrate was constrained to open fire in the air, during which a protestor got shot in his thigh. Commission of Inquiry was constituted vide notification dated 14.04.2017 to inquire into the incidence.

10. On 07.08.2018 FIR No.129 was registered at P.S.City Kotkapura, District Faridkot, Punjab on the recommendation made by the Commission. The petitioner was later arrayed as an accused in the said FIR. On 23.08.2018 a show cause notice was sent. On 04.02.2020 the petitioner filled an appeal/ representation under Rule 16 of the 1969 rules to the Respondent No. 4, while relying on 1969 Service Rules to state that the suspension was valid only for a period of 60 days and the same not having been reviewed by the competent authority, therefore, the petitioner is legally entitled to reinstatement. There was no response. The petitioner filed the second appeal to Respondent No. 1 on 25.02.2020 but the respondents did not revoke the suspension order on completion of 60 days and there was no recommendation of the review committee also. Then respondent no. 1 sought report from respondent No.3.

11. Respondent No. 3 had again intimated the petitioner to reply to the show cause notice dated 23.08.2018. The detailed reply was also submitted on 13.07.2020. The respondent no. 3 served the charge-sheet on 24.09.2020 to the petitioner under Rule 8 of the 1969 Rules for imposition of major penalty upon the petitioner. On 20.11.2020 respondent no.3, after a period of 21 months modified the first suspension order dated 18.02.2019 to the effect that now retrospective suspension was sought to be achieved. The first order dated 18.02.2019 under Rule 3 (2) has been modified and the same has been invoked under Rule 3 (3) of the 1969 Rules saying that the petitioner is kept under suspension until termination of criminal/ departmental proceedings.

12. In FIR No. 130 dated 21.10.2015 Special Investigation Team was constituted for investigating the incidents of sacrilege of Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji in village Behabl, District Faridkot. The petitioner was placed under suspension under Rule 3 (3) of All India Services Discipline and Appeal Rules 1969 in TRIPTI SAINI 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -22- furtherance of FIR.No. 130 dated 21.10.2015 vide order 20.11.2020.

13. FIR No. 147 dated 06.11.2020 was registered at STF, Amritsar, under Sections 21 / 23 / 25 / 27A / 29 NDPS Act, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 420 / 471 / 472 IPC against the petitioner alleging his role while performing his duty as Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range, District Ludhiana. Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 22.03.2021 issued the third suspension order against the applicant under Rule 3 (3) of 1969 Rules.

14. The petitioner filed O.A No.60/695/2022 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench challenging the orders of suspension dated 26.2.2019 (Annexure P-3), 20.11.2020 (Annexure P-17) and 22.3.2021 (Annexure P-18). Learned C.A.T (for short) dismissed the O.A filed before it vide order dated 1.2.2023, which is impugned in the present writ petition. The relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder:-

15. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal mentioned above shows that only by relying upon Rule 3(3) of All India Service (Appeal and Discipline) Rules, 1969, the O.A filed by the petitioner has TRIPTI SAINI 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -24- been dismissed. Further by stating that the deemed suspension order w.e.f 18.02.20219 vide order dated 26.02.2019 under All India Service (Appeal and Discipline) Rules, 1969 was modified by Review Committee set up under Rule 3(8) and based on its report in the discretion of government has put suspension under Rule 3(3) vide order dated 20.11.2020.

16. In the next para, learned Central Administrative Tribunal while deciding the OA has observed that deemed suspension under Rule 3(2) was converted to under Rule 3(3) of the All India Service (Appeal and Discipline) Rules, 1969. Charges being framed/criminal trial pending. Further that Rule 3(3) has to be read in its entirety alongwith Rule 3(7) which allows suspension remain in force unless revoked/modified by the Competent Authority.

17. While deciding OA filed by the petitioner learned Central Administrative Tribunal has held that Rule 3(3) is to be read in its entirety along with Rule 3(7), whereas it is specifically stated in Rule 7(b) that the member of service shall continue to be under suspension subject to sub-rule (8). Just by stating that three FIRs have been filed against the petitioner/applicant, therefore Rule 3(3) of the All India Service (Appeal and Discipline) Rules, 1969 has been invoked. No contention and no discussion regarding the application of Rules is there in the impugned order dated 01.02.2023 (Annexure P-31).

18. Since the petitioner was suspended under Rule 3(3) of the 1969 Rules, therefore, for proper adjudication of the present case it would be necessary to reproduce Rule 3 of 1969 Rules, which reads as under :-

is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to place under suspension a member of the Service, against whom disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or are pending, that Government may---

(a) if the member of the Service is serving under that Government, pass an order placing him suspension, or

(b) if the member of the Service is serving under another Government request that Government to place him under suspension, pending the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and the passing of the final order in the case.

(c) IAS officers working under Central Government shall only be suspended on the recommendations of the Central Review Committee as amended with the approval of Minister-in-charge, Department of Personnel & Training.

Provided that, in cases, where there is a difference of opinion, (1) between two State Governments, the matter shall be referred to the Central Government for its decision:

to that charge, if the charge is connected with his position as a [member of the Service] or is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or involves moral turpitude. (4) A member of the Service shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the Government concerned with effect from the date of conviction. If, in the event of conviction for a criminal offence, if he is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent on such Conviction provided that the conviction carries a sentence of Imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours. Explanation - The period of forty-eight hours referred to in sub-rule (4) shall be commuted from the commencement of the imprisonment after the conviction and for this purpose, intermittent periods of imprisonment, if any, shall be taken into account. (5) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a member of the Service under suspension is set aside in appeal or on review under these rules and the case is remitted for further Inquiry or action or with any other directions, the order of his suspension shall be deemed to have continued in force on and from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall remain in force until further orders.

(6) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a member of the Service is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a Court of Law, and the disciplinary authority, on a consideration of the TRIPTI SAINI circumstances of the case, decides to hold further inquiry against him 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -29- on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the member of the Service shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the Central Government from the date of original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders:

under this rule may at any time be modified or revoked by the authority which made or deemed to have made the order. (8) (a) An order of suspension made under this rule which has not been extended shall be valid for a period not exceeding sixty days and an order of suspension which has been extended shall remain valid for a further period not exceeding one hundred-twenty days, at a time, unless revoked earlier.

(b) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made or continued shall be reviewed by the competent authority on the recommendations of the concerned Review Committee.

(c) The composition and functions of the Review Committees and the procedure to be followed by them shall be as specified in the Schedule 1 annexed to these rules.

(d) The period of suspension [under this rule] may, on the recommendations of the concerned Review Committee, be extended for a further period not exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time:

to the Appointing Authority and the Lending Authority, through confidential letters alongwith the order itself; and

(d) A copy of the suspension order alongwith the reasons or grounds of suspension shall be communicated to the Cadre Controlling authority in the Central Government not later than forty-eighty hours. (10) As soon as a member of the Service is placed under suspension or is deemed to have been placed under suspension, the information in this regard shall be communicated to Government of India expeditiously and within the period of forty-eighty hours. accepted the advice of the Commission, a brief statement of the reasons for such non- acceptance.

19. A bare reading of Rule 3(8)(c) of 1969 Rules shows that the composition and function of the Review Committee and the procedure to be followed by them shall be as specified in the Schedule 1 annexed to these rules, meaning thereby that it is mandatory to follow Schedule -1.

20. The 1969 Rules were amended vide notification dated 21.12.2015 and the same is reproduced hereunder:-

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

2. In the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the said rules), in Rule 3-

(i) in sub-rule (1), in the third proviso, for the words "forty-five days"

(iii) in sub-sub rule (a) of sub-rule(8) of rule 3, the words 'ninety days' and 'one hundred-eighty days' shall be substituted with the words "sixty days" and "one hundred-twenty days" respectively."

21. The first suspension order of the petitioner is dated 26.2.2019 and the same is reproduced as under:-

3. In pursuance of the said rule Sh. Paramraj Singh Umaranangal, IPS shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension w.e.f 18.02.2019. 4 During suspension period his headquarter will be the office of Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh and he will not leave it without the permission of the competent authority. During suspension period he will be entitled to suspension allowance as permissible under rules.

Nirmal Singh Kalsi, IAS Dated, Chandigarh Additional Chief Secretary, to Govt. of Punjab 26.02.2019 Department of Home Affairs & Justice

22. The first suspension order was passed on 26.02.2019, whereby the petitioner was suspended w.e.f 18.02.2019, as per Rule 3(2) of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.

23. The second suspension order of the petitioner is dated 20.11.2020 which is reproduced as under:-

2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

3. As the case of the delinquent officer is fully covered under aforesaid Rule, after consideration of recommendations of DGP, Punjab and applying due diligence, Sh. Paramraj Singh Umranangal, IPS is hereby placed under suspension with immediate effect.

4. During suspension period his headquarters will be the office of Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh and he will not leave it without the permission of the competent authority. During suspension period he will be entitled to suspension allowance as permissible under rules.

Anurag Agarwal, Addl. Chief Secretary, to Govt. of Punjab Department of Home Affairs & Justice Place, Chandigarh, Dated 20th March, 2021 TRIPTI SAINI 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -37-

26. A perusal of the suspension order dated 22.03.2021 shows that by mentioning therein Rule 3(3) of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, on the recommendation of DGP Punjab and after applying the due diligence the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect.

27. The order dated 20.11.2020 is reproduced as under:-

2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -38-

3. Presently following Criminal cases and departmental proceedings are pending against the delinquent:-

2. No.130, dated 21.10.2015 registered u/s 302/307/ 218/201/166A/194/195/109/34/120-B IPC , 25, 27, 59 Arms Act , P.S. City Bajakhana, Distt. Faridkot.

3. Charge-sheet issued vide Govt. Memo No. 02/06/2019- 2H1/1871, dated 24.09.2020 under Rule 8 of All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969.

4. Accordingly case of the delinquent is fully covered under aforesaid provisions of law. Consequently as per recommendations of Review Committee constituted under Rule 3(8) (c) and after applying due diligence, Sh. Paramraj Singh Umranangal, IPS is placed under suspension w.e.f. 18.02.2019 by invoking the rule 3(3) of the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 by partially modifying the State Government order dated 26.02.2019 issued vide Endstt. No.02/06/2019-1H1/467-474, dated 27.02.2019.

5. During suspension period his headquarter will be the office of Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh and he will not leave it without the permission of the competent authority. During suspension period he will be entitled to suspension allowance as permissible under rules.

Anurag Agarwal, IAS Additional Chief Secretary, to Govt. of Punjab TRIPTI SAINI Department of Home Affairs & Justice 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -39- Dated, Chandigarh the 20th November, 2020

28. Vide order dated 20.11.2020 i.e. after a period of about 630 days by reproducing Rule 3(3) of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 and by stating therein that as per the recommendation of Review Committee constituted under Rule 3(8)(c) and after applying due diligence the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f 18.02.2019 by invoking Rule 3(3) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, thereby partially modifying the State Government order dated 26.02.2019.

29. A perusal of all the suspension orders and the modification of order shows that these have been passed without application of mind since on the one hand the wording used by the respondent in the suspension orders is "as per recommendation of review committee constituted under Rule 3(8)(c) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969" and on the other hand the conditions mentioned in Schedule 1 are not followed by the respondent.

30. Schedule (1) of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 deals with composition and function of the Review Committee. The same is reproduced as under :-

2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -40-

(iii) Any other Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary in the concerned Ministry/Department-Member.

Note: The Committee may, if considered necessary, co-opt an officer of the Department of Personnel and Training with the approval of Secretary (Personnel), Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.

(b) The Review Committee constituted by the State Government shall consist-

(i) Chief Secretary-Chairman.

(ii) Senior most Additional Chief Secretary/Chairman, Board of Revenue/ Financial Commissioner or an officer of equivalent rank and status - Member.

(iii) Secretary, Department of Personnel in the State Government- Member Secretary.

Note: (i) The Home Secretary/Director General (Police) of the concerned States may be co-opted wherever a case concerning a member of the Indian Police Service is considered.

(ii) The Secretary Forest/Principal Chief Conservator of forest of the concerned State may be co-opted wherever a case concerning a member of the Indian Forest Service is considered by the Committee.

(iii) In States where Civil Services Board have been constituted, the State Government may entrust the work of the Review Committee to the Board.

2. Functions:-

TRIPTI SAINI 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

3. Procedure:-

31. Now coming to Schedule 1, a perusal of Functions mentioned in Schedule 1 above shows that "in every case the review shall be done within 90 days from the date of order of suspension. In case where a period of suspension has been extended, the next review shall be done within a period of 180 days TRIPTI SAINI 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -42- from the date of last extension." Even as per Functions mentioned in Schedule 1 a particular time limit i.e. 90 days, 180 days is a mandate.

32. But in the present case while passing order of suspension under Rule 3(3) of the Rules 1969, by placing the case before the Review Committee constituted under Rule 3(8)(c) of the Rules 1969, the State has totally ignored the Rules formulated by the Central Government.

33. State cannot pick and choose the Rules of their suitability and pass the orders without following the procedure as mentioned in the Rules.

34. A perusal of the above Schedule shows that in every case review shall be done within 90 days from the date of order of the suspension. Further that in a case where period of suspension has been extended, the next review shall be done within a period of 180 days from the date of last extension.

35. Whereas in the present case order dated 20.11.2020 is passed as per the recommendation of review committee constituted under Rule 3 (8) (c) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 and this is passed after a period of about 630 days, meaning thereby the State Government totally ignored the Rules as well as Schedule while passing order against the petitioner.

36. Bare perusal of Schedule 1 mentioned above shows that when the respondent-State is relying upon Rule 3(8)(c) of the Rules 1969 while passing the suspension order under Rule 3(3), it is specifically mentioned in Rule 3(8)(c) and it is mandatory since the wording used is "the composition and functions of the Review Committee and the procedure to be followed by them shall be as specified in Schedule 1 annexed to these Rules."

37. Annexure-II to the 1969 Rules is the procedure to be followed for suspension of All India Service Officers posted in Ministries/Departments/States under the 1969 Rules and the same is reproduced hereunder:- TRIPTI SAINI 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -44-

v) Where a State Government passes an order for suspension of a member of Service it will be valid for a period of thirty days from the date from which the member is placed under suspension. Further extension for thirty days requires confirmation by the Central Government.

vi) An order of suspension which has been extended shall remain valid for a further period not exceeding one hundred twenty days, at a time, unless revoked earlier on the recommendation of the Central/State Review Committee.

vii) The period of suspension may further be extended for a period of one eighty days at a time on the recommendation of the Central/State Review Committee (as mentioned in Schedule 1 and 2 under AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969) as the case may be.

viii) IAS officers working under Central Government shall only be suspended on the recommendations of the Central Review Committee as amended with the approval of Minister-In-charge, Department of Personnel & Training. Central Ministries shall submit proposal for suspension of a Member of Service to this Department with the approval of Minister-in-charge of that Ministry.

ix) The period of suspension of a member of Service suspended on charges other than corruption shall not exceed one year but the same can be continued beyond one year on the recommendations of the Central Review Committee.

x) The period of suspension of a member of Service suspended on TRIPTI SAINI charges of corruption shall not exceed two years but the same can 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -45- be continued beyond two years on the recommendations of the Central Review Committee.

xi) Appeal against suspension order shall be sent to the appellate authority along with comments within thirty days from the receipt of the appeal by the State Governments. If the original appeal along with the comments of the State Government is not received by the Central Government within stipulated period, the Central Government shall take a decision on the advance copy of the appeal received by them.

xii) If the memorial is against the orders of a State Government, it shall be submitted through the State Government concerned and if the memorial is against the orders of the Central Government, it shall be submitted through the Ministry or the authority concerned in the Central Government, and the State Government concerned, or as the case may be, the Ministry or authority in the Central Government shall forward the same together within thirty days from the receipt of the memorial by the State Governments with a concise statement of facts material thereto and, unless there are special reasons to the contrary, with an expression of its opinion thereon and if the original memorial along with the comments of the Ministry or the State Government concerned or as the case may be, is not received by the Central Government within stipulated period, the Central Government shall take decision on the advance copy of the memorial received by them.

xiii) The Review Committee constituted by the State Government TRIPTI SAINI shall consist :

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

suspension order dated 26.02.2019 would be valid upto 20.03.2019 (period of 30 days). It is specifically mentioned in the above mentioned clause (v) of the Procedure that further extension of 30 days requires confirmation by the Central Government whereas in the present case no confirmation by Central Government is there.

40. Further as per Clause VI of Annexure II i.e. Procedure to be followed for suspension of All India Service Officers posted in Ministries/Departments/State Government under AIS (D&A) Rules, 1989, an order of suspension which has been extended shall remain valid for further period not exceeding one hundred twenty days, at a time, unless revoked earlier on the recommendation of the Central/State Review Committee. Whereas inspite of the fact that there is no extension order, the State Government has gone beyond the procedure and without any order on record for extension or confirmation by the Central Government, the petitioner is under suspension till date.

41. Further as per Clause VII of Annexure II i.e. the Procedure to be followed for suspension of All India Service Officers posted in Ministries/Departments/State Government under AIS (D&A) Rules, 1989, the period of suspension may further be extended for a period of one eighty days at a time on the recommendation of the Central/State Review Committee as mentioned in Schedule 1 and II under AIS (D&A) Rules 1969 as the case may be and in the present case this clause is not followed.

42. Clause IX of Annexure II i.e. the Procedure to be followed for suspension of All India Service Officers posted in Ministries/Departments/State Government under AIS(D&A) Rules, 1989, the period of suspension of a member of Service suspended on charges other than corruption shall not exceed one year but the same can be continued beyond one year on the recommendations of the TRIPTI SAINI 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -48- Central Review Committee AND in the present case the petitioner is placed under Suspension w.e.f 18.02.2019 till date without any order of extension or any recommendation of the Central Review Committee.

43. After perusal of the suspension orders which are placed on the record and Annexure II of the Procedure to be followed for suspension of All India Service Officers posted in Ministries/Departments/State Government under AIS (D&A) Rules, 1989, it is revealed that the State Government did not bother to follow the procedure which is mandatory in the case of the petitioner for the reasons best known to the State. It is very unfortunate to observe that on the one hand the petitioner is awarded with two Gallantry Awards for rendering his meritorious service in combating with terrorism in the State of Punjab, but on the other hand the State Government has placed the petitioner under Suspension since 18.02.2019 till date i.e. for a period of almost five years without following any procedure, without any extension, without any recommendation of Central Review Committee, without any confirmation by the Central Government, which doubts the intention of the officers who are passing the suspension orders one after the other .

44. The State Government is expected to adhere to the Rules and the Procedure as laid down by the framers.

45. Part II of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 deals with 'suspension'. The dispute in the present case is as to whether Rule 3(3) is to be read with Rule 3(8) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. Rule 3(3) of the Rules 1969 reads as under:-

may, at the discretion of the Government be placed under suspension until the termination of all proceedings relating to that charge, if the charge is connected with his position as a [member of the Service] or is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or involves moral turpitude."

46. A perusal of the Rule 3 (3) shows that no period of suspension is mentioned in this. The language used is "may, at the discretion of the Government be placed under suspension until the termination of all proceedings relating to that charge". The intention of the framers cannot be to place the member of service under suspension for years together. That is the reason in Rule 3(8) of the Rules 1969, the time period as well as the procedure to be followed for extension of time period is mentioned.

47. A perusal of the suspension order dated 20.11.2020, wherein the language used is 'the case was placed before the Review Committee constituted under Rule 3(8)(c) of the Rules 1969, who has recommended that Sh. Param Raj Singh Umaranangal, IPS to be placed under suspension w.e.f.26.09.2020 under Rule 3(3) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969' shows that Rule 3(3) of the Rules 1969 is read with Rule 3(8) of the Rules, 1969. Further all the cases wherein the member of service is suspended under Rule 3(3) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, the case is placed before the Review Committee constituted under Rule 3(8)(c) of the Rules 1869, meaning thereby the cases of suspension of Rule 3(3) of the Rules 1869 are dealt with as per the parameters laid down under Rule 3(8) of the Rules 1869.

48. The respondent-State cannot pick and choose the Rules of their suitability. When in the order of suspension under Rule 3(3) of the Rules 1869, a reference is given that the case was placed before the Review Committee TRIPTI SAINI 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -50- constituted under Rule 3(8) (c) of the Rules 1869, then sub-clause (a),(b),(d) and the proviso of Rule 3(8) cannot be said to be not applicable in case of the petitioner.

49. The contention of the learned State counsel that Rule 3(8) of the Rules 1869, would not be applicable in case of the petitioner, is rejected on this ground that the orders of suspension under Rule 3(3) of the Rules 1869, are dealt with by the following the procedure as laid down under Rule 3(8)(c) of the Rules 1869.

50. Rule 3(8) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 is reproduced hereunder:-

51. A perusal of the above Rule shows that there is a limit of keeping the member of service under suspension and the maximum period after extension is not exceeding 180 days at a time.

52. Further, Rule 3(8)(c) reads that the composition and functions of the Review Committee and the procedure to be followed by them shall be specified in Schedule 1 annexed to these Rules.

53. In view of the explanation made above the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that if the provisions of Rule 3(8) are made applicable to Rule 3(3) then Rule 3(3) would become meaningless and otiose and further that the period mentioned under Rule 3(8) cannot be applied to Rule 3(3) also, is rejected.

54. Vide notification dated 21.12.2015 the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 were amended. The amended relevant rules in the present case are reproduced as under:-

(iii) in sub-sub rule (a) of sub-rule(8) of rule 3, the words 'ninety days' and ' one hundred-eighty days' shall be substituted with the TRIPTI SAINI 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -52- words "sixty days" and "one hundred-twenty days" respectively."

55. Since the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 were amended vide notification dated 21.12.2015, therefore, the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), on 25.05.2016, issued the following office memorandum:-

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

2. In the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the said rules), in Rule 3-

(i) in sub-rule (1), in the third proviso, for the words "forty-five days"

(iii) in sub-sub rule (a) of sub-rule(8) of rule 3, the words 'ninety days' and ' one hundred-eighty days' shall be substituted with the words "sixty days" and "one hundred-twenty days" respectively."

56. A perusal of above office memorandum shows that the procedure referred to in Annexure - II is required to be followed by the State Government for suspension of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.

57. In the present case the period of suspension is never extended, rather a perusal of the suspension order shows that they are modified.

Dealing with the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent.

58. Sultana Begum Vs. Prem Chand Jain (supra) :- This is a case relating to Section 47 and Order 21 Rule 2 CPC and execution of decree and the question dealt with is regarding the general power of deciding the question relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree under Section 47 C.P.C. This judgment is of no support to the respondents since the facts of the present case are altogether different.

59. Allahabad Bank Vs. Deepak Kumar Bhola (supra):- In this case the respondent was facing serious charges of corruption and misappropriation of money. Further the question dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court was of moral turpitude. This judgment would also not be applicable to the facts of this case.

60. A.K.K Nambiar Vs. Union of India and Another (supra) :- In this case Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with Rule 7, 7(1) and 7 (3) of the All India Service TRIPTI SAINI 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -54- (Appeal and Discipline) Rules, 1955 and in this case the order of suspension was challenged on the ground of malafide. Further in this case the order of suspension was based upon prima facie involvement of employee in malpractices and corruption. This judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.

61. Union of India and Others Vs. Bani Singh (supra) :- This case relates to deemed suspension under Rule 10(2) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules 1965. This is again a case of corruption, therefore, this would also not be applicable.

Now coming to the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

62. Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary (supra), has been held as under:-

2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -56-

63. In State of Tamil Nandu Vs. Parmod Kumar, IPS and Another (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has been held as under :-

64. In K. Sukhender Reddy Vs. State of A.P and Another (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has been held as under:-

65. In M. Kalaivanan (supra), Madras High Court has been held as under:-

In the instant case despite the order of the Tribunal dated 16.12.1997, directing to expedite the Investigation, Investigation is completed only in one case as alleged the charge-sheet has not been filed yet and in another case, Investigation is pending, as mentioned above.

8. A perusal of the notification, which came into effect from the date of its publication i.e. 13.7.1998, reveals that the suspension order remains valid for a period of 90 days and an order which has TRIPTI SAINI been extended shall remain valid for a further period not exceeding 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -61- 180 days at a time. The respondents have also not communicated the special circumstances for not initiating disciplinary proceedings, allowing the continuance of the suspension order, beyond the period stipulated.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show that the competent authority has considered and reviewed that continuance of the suspension is necessary and has not communicated the extension of any such suspension order to the petitioner, to that effect, after the orders of the Tribunal, nor after the publication of the new notification, despite time granted earlier by this Court. Considering the facts that the petitioner is placed under suspension for the last 2-12 years and as discussed above, and in view of the notification, the continuance suspension of the petitioner will become invalid and the same cannot be continued. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case without going into the merits of the case, and in view of legal position as stated. We are of the view that under the facts and circumstances of the given case, the order of suspension, Impugned herein, cannot continue and the same is liable to be revoked. The orders dated 23.9.1996 and 26.8.1997 are set aside to this extent. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated into service within one week from today. However, the reinstatement will be subject to the result of the investigation and the enquiry. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. WMP No. 2010 of 1998 is dismissed."

66. In State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors (Supra), Madhya Pradesh High TRIPTI SAINI 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -62- Court has held as under:-

said statutory Review Committee.

8.5 To make the power of suspension more circumscribed and bereft of element of arbitrariness, Rule 3 underwent another spell of amendment by notification dated 21.12.2015, which introduced the following changes:-

Meaning thereby that order of suspension passed under Rule 3, which has not been extended, shall be valid for a period not exceeding 60 days and the order of suspension which has been extended shall remain valid for a period not exceeding 120 days unless revoked earlier.

(iv) The composition of Review Committee constituted by the Central Government and also by the State Government were TRIPTI SAINI statutorily provided in Schedule 1 of Rules of 1969 w.e.f.

30.09.2009. The Review Committee comprised of High Ranking Bureaucrats to keep a check on the arbitrary, whimsical and unreasonable exercise of power of suspension and it's extension by the Competent Authority.

9. Bare perusal of aforesaid Rule 3(8), reveals that Review Committee is constituted for the purpose of assessing sufficiency of grounds for continuation of suspension order. There are two such Review Committees contemplated by Schedule 1 appended to said Rules. One under the Central Government and the other under the State Government. Schedule 1 also delineates the function to be performed by these Committees, which is to examine the existence/non existence and sufficiency of grounds justifying continuance of suspension beyond initial period of suspension as per Rule 3(8) of Rules of 1969.

9.1 No doubt, Rule 3(8)(a) of Rules of 1969 while prescribing the initial period of suspension of 60 days excludes from its sweep those orders of suspension, which have been extended by the State Government. Meaning thereby that if order of suspension is passed and is not extended before expiry of 60 days, then the same would lapse.

9.2 Pertinently, the first review by Review Committee is stipulated to be undertaken within 90 days of the order of suspension which is not extended. While for suspension orders which are extended the review by Review Committee is mandated to be undertaken within 180 days (vide Clause 2 of Schedule I). More so, Rule 3(8)(d) TRIPTI SAINI circumscribes the power of extension of suspension backed by 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -65- recommendations of Review Committee to a maximum of 180 days at a time. Meaning thereby, if any order of suspension is extended beyond initial period of 60 days, then such orders can remain valid for another 120 days (for a total of 60+120-180 days) without obtaining recommendations of Review Committee thereby compelling the officer to remain suspended for six months without any review.

9.3 Thus, before expiry of initial period of suspension of 60 days, Competent Authority is empowered to extend the same beyond period of 60 days. Pertinently, after amendment in Rule 3, the power to assess legality, validity and sufficiency of grounds for extension beyond 60 days or beyond any further period exclusively with Review Committee. Competent Authority thus to preserve and further the object behind the amendment cannot continue or extend, whether it is first extension beyond initial period of suspension of 60 days or any subsequent extension/continuance except on the recommendations of Review Committee. Thus, convening of Review Committee prior to expiry of initial period of suspension of 60 days inferentially sub-serves the object of the amended Rules.

10. Rule 3(8)(a) of Rules of 1969 creates two class of suspension orders. First being the order of suspension which has been extended beyond the period of 60 days by the State/Competent Authority without recommendation of Review Committee and thus can remain valid for a further period not exceeding 120 days. Whereas for the second category of suspension orders, which have not been extended TRIPTI SAINI by the State/Competent Authority, the order of suspension lapses on 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -66- expiry of 60 days, if neither charge sheet is filed nor Central Government confirms the suspension order. Respondents are unable to disclose the reason behind such a classification, which thus appears to have no rationale.

10.1 If Rule 3 of Rules of 1969 is read textually as well as contextual then no such reason is palpable to justify such a classification.

10.2 The concept of review of an order of suspension is founded up the rationale that extensions/continuance of order of suspension t place for reasons justified in law without any discrimination, arbitrariness or capriciousness coming into play. With this rationale behind every act of extension/continuance suspension order beyond initial period of 60 days, it does not appeal to reason that the safety measure of review should not be applied while extending the period of suspension beyond 60 days. 10.3 As explained above, an officer shall remain under suspension for six months without his case being considered by the Review Committee. It is only when the extension is proposed beyond the period of six months, then the Review Committee would be consulted and not otherwise. This situation would allow the State/Competent Authority to use the power of suspension as a weapon for victimizing employees by keeping them under prolonged suspension for six months without having to justify the decision of extension to the Review Committee.

11. In view of aforesaid series of amendments, which Rule 3 TRIPTI SAINI underwent, it is obvious that beyond initial period of 60 days, which 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -67- is provided under the third Proviso to Rule 3 (1) as the maximum period for issuance of charge sheet qua suspension relating to contemplated disciplinary proceedings, every extension whether made by the Competent Authority or by the Central Government or by the State Government beyond period of 60 days ought to be subjected to scrutiny of Review Committees as a sine qua non so as to prevent every extension from falling foul of arbitrariness, capriciousness and unreasonableness.

11.1 Thus, the intention behind amended Rule 3 is to render every decision making process of extension/continuance of suspension orders, to be immune from arbitrariness.

xxx xxx xxx

13. From the aforesaid discussion, what comes out loud and clear is that Review Committee constituted by the Rules of 1969 especially Rule 3(8)(c) is required to be mandatorily consulted by the Competent Authority not only for the purposes of second, third or subsequent extensions of period of suspension, but also in regard to extension/continuance beyond the initial period of 60 days.

67. Vide order dated 26.07.2023, this Court passed the following order :-

68. The ratio of the judgments mentioned above is that one cannot be kept in suspension for an indefinite period in the garb of pending enquiry/investigation in criminal proceedings.

69. In compliance of order dated 26.07.2023, a short reply was filed by Union of India, through Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. The relevant paras of the stand taken by Union of India are reproduced as under :-

Further, Rule 3(8)(c) provides for functions of Review Committees and procedures to be followed while Rule 3(8)(d) provides that period of suspension under this rule may, on the recommendations of the concerned Review Committee, be extended for a further period not exceeding 180 days at a time provided that where no order has been passed under this clause, the order of suspension shall stand revoked with effect from the date of expiry of order being reviewed.

TRIPTI SAINI

12. That as regards petitioner's plea of review of suspension as per 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:014711-DB CWP-3087-2023 (O&M) -70- Rule 3(8) of 1969 Rules, it is submitted and reiterated that the petitioner has been suspended by respondent-State Government under Rule 3(3) of 1969 Rules.

A simple reading of Rule 3(8) stated that an order of suspension made under Rule(3) requires to be reviewed by the concerned Review Committee. It doesn't differentiate the reason for suspension prescribed under Rule 3(1) to Rule 3(6)."

70. A bare perusal of the stand taken by the Union of India shows that respondent No.1 has supported the case of the petitioner by giving interpretation with regard to the period of suspension mentioned in Rule 3(8) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. Further by clarifying that Rule 3(8) of the Rules 1969 doesn't differentiate the reason for suspension prescribed under Rule 3(1) to Rule 3(6).

71. In view of the above discussion, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.02.2023 (Annexure P-31) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in OA No.695 of 2022, the suspension orders dated 26.02.2019 (Annexure P-3), 20.11.2020 (Annexure P-17) and 22.03.2021 (Annexure P-18) and order dated 20.11.2020 (Annexure P-16), are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to join the services forthwith.

72. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : YES/NO TRIPTI SAINI 2024.02.02 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document