AMOY MORANG Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, assisted by Mr. N. Ratan, learned counsel as well as Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, representing State respondents, assisted by Ms. P. Pangu, learned Junior Govt. Advocate.

(2.) The writ petitioner, who was working as the Chief Executive Officer, Smart City Development Corporation Limited, Pasighat, East Siang District was put under suspension under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 by an order, dated 10.11.2018, issued by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar on 13.11.2018, vide Memo. No. DTP/SC02/2017-18, annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, contemplated/pending a disciplinary proceeding.

(3.) The writ petitioner by relying on Sub-Rules 6 & 7 of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 contends that if the respondent authorities wanted the writ petitioner to be under further suspension, it ought to have extended the suspension of the writ petitioner by issuing a fresh order within a period of 90 days from the last date of suspension order. According to the writ petitioner, if the date of the order of suspension is taken to be the 10.11.2018, the 90 days will expire on 07.02.2019 and if the order of suspension is taken to be issued on 13.11.2018, the period of 90 days expires on 10.02.2019. Accordingly, the petitioner contends that the respondent authorities having not issued further order of suspension of the writ petitioner, either before 07.02.2019 or 10.02.2019, the earlier order of suspension issued would be deemed to have lapsed in view of the Sub-Rule 7 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.