SAMAR BHUSAN SARKAR Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel, Mr. B. Banerjee for the petitioner and learned G.A., Mr. T. Datta Majumder for respondent No.1 and learned senior counsel, Mr. S. Deb, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Somik Deb for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

(2.) THE matter seems to be very simple and the same is taken up for disposal.

(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Banerjee that at no point of time the matter of suspension of the petitioner was reviewed by the authority. Once the order of suspension was passed on 18.03.1996, it was continued without any review and the petitioner is getting the subsistence allowance for last seventeen years. Since the suspension order was not reviewed as required under Rule 10 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 (for short, Rules of 1965), the continuance of suspension was altogether illegal and wrong. Learned counsel, therefore has prayed for quashing the order of suspension dated 18.03.1996(Annexure -1 to the writ petition). In support of his contention learned counsel has referred to the provisions of Rule 10(6 and 7) of the Rules of 1965. He has also referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Dipak Mali reported in 2010 AIR SCW 158. In course of argument, learned counsel, Mr. Banerjee also placed on record a Memo. vide No. F. 3(22) -ard/98 dated 19.6.1998, issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tripura. He has also referred Rule 53 of the Fundamental Rules in support of his contention.