M E RAJARAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsels appearing for the parties.

(2.) THOUGH the matter was listed for considering the grant of stay, since the question raised in the Miscellaneous petition is the same as in the main writ petition and since the entire matter depends upon the interpretation of the rules, by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.

(3.) THE petitioner was placed under suspension on 31. 01. 2003 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding initiated under Rule 10 (1) of the CCS CCA Rules, 1965. Thereafter, punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed by order dated 29. 01. 2004 with effect from 31. 01. 2004. However, the appellate authority directed a de novo enquiry by order dated 26. 08. 2004. Therefore, by virtue of Rule 10 (3), the petitioner is deemed to have continued under suspension on and from the date of the original order of compulsory retirement by virtue of the order relating to de novo enquiry. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Original Application No. 97 of 2005 before the third respondent Tribunal challenging the continuation of the suspension order beyond a period of 90 days from the date of suspension, that is to say, from 26. 08. 2004.