UNION OF INDIA Vs. DEVENDRA R. CHATURVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is directed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Branch on 8 -9 -2010. By this order, the Tribunal has allowed the original application filed by the respondent and concluded that the suspension order issued against the respondent was not valid beyond a period of 90 days of its issuance as the petitioners had breached the service rules applicable to the respondent. The respondent was appointed in the Central Excise Department on 15 -6 -1984. While holding the post of Superintendent (Preventive), Central Excise, Thane II, the respondent was detained in custody by the Central Bureau of Investigation from 23 -9 -2004 to 6 -10 -2004. An order was issued by the petitioners on 29 -9 -2004 indicating that the respondent was deemed to be under suspension in view of Rule 10(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. It appears that this order of suspension was continued beyond a period of ninety days without obtaining the recommendations of the review committee. Aggrieved by the continuation of the order of suspension, till 24 -4 -2010, the respondent preferred Original Application No. 250 of 2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The principal grievance of the respondent in his application was that the orders dated 29 -9 -2004 and 28 -10 -2010, continuing him under suspension were invalid as they had been passed in breach of Rule 10 of the aforesaid Rules. He therefore sought directions from the Tribunal to quash the orders.

(2.) THIS application was opposed by the petitioners on various grounds. It was mainly the contention of the petitioners that the order of suspension issued on 29 -9 -2004 suspending the respondent w.e.f. 23 -9 -2004 had been validated by the review committee when it decided that the order of the suspension should be continued. The petitioners contended that the review of this suspension order was undertaken by the committee within a period of 90 days and, therefore the continuation of the respondent on suspension was in consonance with the Rules applicable to the respondent.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued before us that the Tribunal has erred in its calculations of the number of days after the suspension order was issued to the respondent during which time the order was reviewed within the period stipulated in the service Rules. He submitted before us that the date of the suspension order must be reckoned from the date on which it was issued to the delinquent employee and not from any previous date. The learned Counsel has drawn our attention to the service Rules which were in operation when the respondent was suspended and the amended Rules. The service rules were amended in 2007.