UNION OF INDIA Vs. DIPAK MAIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Leave Petition has 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) in the Gun Carriage Factory at Jabalpur, was suspended 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 :

(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 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 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-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 sub judice on account of the pendency of the Original Application filed by the respondent before the expiry of 90 days from 2nd June, 2004, the petitioners were unable to review the respondent's case.