DANEY KUMAR Vs. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant in this OA has challenged the Order dated 7.8.2013 (Annexure A -1) by which the suspension relating to applicant was extended for a further period of 90 days w.e.f. 7.8.2013 on the ground that it is contrary to the provisions of Rule 10(6) and 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant, who was working as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in Medical Council of India (MCI), was placed under suspension vide order dated 9.11.2012 (Annexure A -2) allegedly on false allegations. After review, an order dated 6.02.2012 (Annexure A -4) was issued by which the applicants suspension period was extended for a further period of 90 days i.e. w.e.f. 7.2.2013. Subsequently vide order 7.5.2013 (Annexure A -5), the suspension period was again extended for 90 days w.e.f. 7.5.2013. The aforenoted period of 90 days w.e.f. 7.5.2013 expired on 4.8.2013 but this suspension order was not reviewed and no order of extension of suspension was passed on or before expiry of 90 days i.e. 4.8.2013.

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY , vide an order dated 7.8.2013 (Annexure A -1) the respondents again extended the suspension period for 90 days w.e.f. 7.8.2013 based on the recommendations of the Review Committee. The applicant states that this is in contravention of provisions as contained under sub -rule (6) and sub -rule (7) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, in as much as no review was made and an order extending the period of suspension was passed before expiry of the earlier order.

(3.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed in which the respondents have justified their action and have stated that the applicant cannot be permitted to take advantage of an inadvertent delay of one day in passing the order extending the suspension period for a further period of 90 days. It is further submitted that Rule 10(6) and 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules do not support the case of the applicant in as much as the period of suspension can be extended for further period of 90 days but not exceeding 180 days at a time. They have also referred to the charges against the applicant. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the reliance placed on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (Civil) No. 7682/2010 is misconceived since the facts of that case were completely different because in that case the order of suspension was reviewed with retrospective effect. This was not the case in the present OA.