SUBHASH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order F.No. 17-245/Esstt-II/2006-1434 dated 08.11.2017, the respondent No. 2 (Vice Chancellor) in exercise of powers conferred by Statute 27 (1) of the NEHU Act has placed the petitioner under suspension. The said order of suspension has been ratified by the Executive Council on 28.02.2018, thereafter, the order of suspension has been reviewed in the month of July/August 2018 and extended.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of Rule 10 (6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the suspension will not remain valid unless it is extended on review for a further period before the expiry of 90 days. According to him, the suspension case of the petitioner has been reviewed after expiry of 90 days, therefore, the suspension has lapsed. Supporting his submission has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dipak Mali, 2010 2 SCC 222.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 in opposition, submits that the period of suspension will reckon against the petitioner from 28.02.2018 when the suspension order was ratified. The submission is without substance on two counts, firstly, the petitioner in effect, has been placed under suspension on 08.11.2017. Secondly, his suspension case should have been ratified and reviewed well within 90 days. The suspension order dated 08.11.2017 has been rectified by the Executive Council of the University on 28.02.2018 even if, same is taken as the date for reckoning the period of suspension still the period of 90 days would expire on 28.05.2018. Suspension has been reviewed in the month of July/August 2018 when the requirement of the Rule is that review of suspension shall be before the expiry of 90 days. In both cases, suspension of the petitioner automatically lapsed.