UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus DIPAK MALI

Citation: [2009] 16 S.C.R. 564 · Decided: 15-12-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
[2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 564 
A 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
V. 
DIPAK MALI 
-
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6661 of 2006) 
B 
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 
/ 
566 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) $.C.R. 
;,, 
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.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.