RAJ @ TEJRAJ SON OF GOWARDHAN INDURKAR Vs. SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) The petitioner in Writ Petition No.3259/2006 was working as Deputy Director (Programme) at Nagpur with Respondent No.1, whereas the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3320/2006 was working as Accountant at Nagpur with Respondent No.1. In connection with misappropriation of the funds of respondent No.1 for the project at Khajuraho (Madhya Pradesh) in the year 1997 an offence under Sections 408, 420, 468, 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code was registered with C.I.D., Bhopal on 27.07.1999. The petitioners were arrested on 16.02.2005 in connection with the said offence. Subsequently they were released on bail by Madhya Pradesh High Court on 06.05.2005. By order dated 28.02.2005 both the petitioners were suspended under Rule 10(1) (a) and 10(2)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 as disciplinary proceedings against them were contemplated and that they were detained in custody on a criminal charge for a period exceeding 48 hours. Since then they remained suspended. By the same order their headquarters were changed from Nagpur to Khajuraho. It seems that the petitioners did not report at Khajuraho and subsequently their headquarters were again changed from Khajuraho to Nagpur. Their suspension however, continued. The petitioners approached the Appellate Authority against their suspension. By order dated 13.01.2006, in case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3259 of 2006, and by order dated 23.01.2006 in case of the petitioner Writ Petition No.3320/2006 the Appellate Authority refused to revoke the suspension order in view of the criminal proceedings against them and treated their absence from Khajuraho as an unauthorised absence for all purposes. Both these orders are challenged by the petitioners.

(3.) It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order of suspension passed against both the petitioners was never extended by respondent No.1. In this respect the learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to Rule 10(5) (a) of the Rules, which provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so. Rule 10 (7) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (5) (a), an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days.