SUNIL KUMAR BHATNAGAR Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) PETITIONER was appointed as an Overseer by the Cantonment Board, Roorkee. He was later promoted in the year 2007 as an Assistant Engineer. On 05.10.2013, the Central Bureau of Investigation registered an FIR under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Petitioner came to be arrested on 06.10.2013 and he was detained. Petitioner came to be suspended by order dated 10.10.2013 purporting to act under Section 10 -A 2(a) of the Cantonment Funds Servants Rules, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Petitioner obtained order of bail from this Court on 10.02.2014. Pursuant to the same, he was, apparently, released from jail and he made a representation to the CEO of the Cantonment Board on 17.02.2014. The Cantonment Board, it appears, sent a letter to the CBI on 04.04.2014 seeking their views.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Ambrish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, as also, Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board. Mr. Ambrish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit before us that reliance placed by the respondents on the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 is misplaced and the Rules, which are applicable, are the 1937 Rules. According to him, the Rules require that if there is an order of suspension, it must be reviewed and if it is to be extended, it should be so done within a period of 90 days. Attention was drawn to Rule 10 (6) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Rule 10(6) is extracted hereunder: