(1.) THE petitioner seeks directions for quashing of letters dated 09.08.2012 and 26.02.2013 which extended the period of his suspension - initially made by order dated 01.06.2011.
(2.) THE brief facts are that the petitioner was serving as an Assistant Commandant and was posted on 14.03.2011 with the 76th Battalion of the Border Security Force (BSF). A First Information Report (FIR) alleging commission of offences punishable under certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were lodged against the third party for selling 5000 litres of kerosene oil. A preliminary inquiry was conducted which resulted in the petitioner being charge -sheeted along with other employees. This led to a Staff Court of Enquiry on various dates in March, April and May 2011. As a consequence, the petitioner's superior officer recommended that he ought to be placed under suspension. On 01.06.2011, the Director General placed him under suspension for 90 days with immediate effect. During that time, he was attached to the 32rd Battalion and paid Subsistence Allowance in accordance with the Rules. The suspension order did not spell -out its duration. It merely stated that it was operative with "immediate effect". It appears that subsequently on 09.08.2012 and on 26.02.2013, orders to extend the period of suspension were made, based upon review as to whether the period of suspension had to be extended. These reviews - to consider extension of suspension period were actually undertaken by the BSF authorities on 30.09.2011 and 12.12.2011.
(3.) LEARNED counsel relies upon the decision of the Patna High Court in Prabhanjan Kumar v. The Union of India CWJC No. 4905/2010 (decided on 10.05.2010). It is submitted that the said High Court had dealt with a case under the CRPF Act, 1949 which contains provisions identical to Rule 40A of the BSF Rules and that the said High Court held that the review provisions under CCS Rules were mandatory. The Patna High Court inter alia stated in Prabhanjan (supra) as follows: