Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusDIPAK MALI
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 1311
- Decided
- 15 December 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ALTAMAS KABIR
Holding
A suspension order that is not reviewed or extended within the prescribed ninety‑day period under sub‑rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10 becomes invalid, and a later review cannot revive it.
Summary
Dipak Mali, a civilian motor driver, was suspended on 10 August 2002. Sub‑rules (6) and (7) were inserted into Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 by a 2003 notification, effective 2 June 2004, mandating that a suspension be reviewed within ninety days or be extended after such review; otherwise the suspension becomes invalid. No review was conducted within the prescribed period and the first review occurred on 20 October 2004, well beyond the deadline. Mali approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which quashed the suspension, a decision affirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Union appealed, contending that the delay in review was caused by the pendency of the Tribunal proceedings under Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Supreme Court held that the statutory requirement of review within ninety days is mandatory, the suspension became invalid after that period, and a later review cannot revive it; the delay was not justified. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a suspension order under Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 becomes invalid if not reviewed or extended within ninety days as required by sub‑rules (6) and (7).
- Whether the pendency of a proceeding before the Central Administrative Tribunal, invoking Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, bars the employer from effecting a review of the suspension within the statutory period.
- Whether a subsequent review and extension can revive a suspension order that has already become invalid after the ninety‑day period.
Legislation cited
Subjects
suspensionservice lawCentral Civil Services (CCA) Rulesreview of suspensionAdministrative Tribunals ActSection 19(4)Central Administrative TribunalSpecial Leave Petitioninvalid suspension
Judgment
...
[2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 564
A UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
V.
DIPAK MALI
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6661 of 2006)
DECEMBER 15, 2009
-
B
[ALTf'MAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]
~.
Service Law:
Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965:
c
"· 10(6) and (7) - Order of suspension - Not reviewed
within ninety days from date of suspension - HELD: Order of
suspension would not survive after the period of ninety days
unless it was extended after review - Subsequent review and
'L
D extension would not revive the order - Central Administrative
Tribunal rightly quashed the suspension order holding the
same as invalid in the absence of its review and extension
within the period stipulated - High Court rightly confirmed the
view of the Tribunal.
E The respondent, a Civilian Motor Driver-II in the
employment of the appellants, was placed under
suspension on 10.8. 2002. Consequent upon the insertion ~
of sub-rules (6) and (7) to r.10 of the Central Civil Services
(CCA) Rules, 1965 as notified by Notification dated 23-12-
F 2003, providing for review of the suspension order before
expiry of ninety days from the date of suspension and that ..
an order of suspension would not be valid after a period
of ninety days unless it was extended after review for a
further period before the expiry of ninety days,
G respondent approached the Central Administrative
Tribunal contending that the suspension order dated
~ .·- .
10.8.2002, having not been extended by Review
Committee, became invalid on the expiry of ninety days
H 564
UNION OF !NOIA & ORS. v. DIPAK MALI 565
from the date on which sub-rules (6) and (7) of r. 10 came A
into force. The Tribunal allowed the application and
quashed the suspension order. The writ petition of the
Government was dismissed by the High Court.
In the instant appeal filed by the Government, it was
B
contended for the appellants that the delay in not
conducting the review was not on account of any laches
_y on the part of the appellants, but in view of the pendency
of the application filed by the respondent before the
Tribunal, which was disposed of only on 18.8.2004, the
departmental proceedings having abated in terms of c
s.19(4) of the Act, the appellants were unable to take any
action under r. 10 of the Rules.
Dismissing the SLP, the Court
HELD: 1.1. There is no dispute that the suspension D
-J'
of the respondent was not extended. It has not been
denied that the amended provisions of r.10 of the Central
Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 came into effect from
2nd June, 2004, and that the case of the respondent was
reviewed on 20th October, 2004, beyond the period E
envisaged under sub-rule (6) thereof. [Para 3 and 6) [567-
H; 568-A-E-F]
·~
1.2. The Central Administrative Tribunal rightly held
' that having regard to sub-rules (6) and (7) of r.10, the F
review for modification or revocation of the order of
suspension was required to be done before the expiry of
90 days from the date of order of suspension and, as
categorically provided under sub-rule (7), the order of
suspension made or deemed would not be valid after a
G
period of 90 days unless it was extended after review for
• 1' a further period of 90 days. The High Court has rightly
confirmed the view of the Tribunal. [Para 10) [569-G-H;
570-A-B]
1.3. As regards the cause of delay in reviewing the H
/
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) $.C.R.
;,,
A respondent's case, s.19 (4) of the Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985 speaks of abatement of proceedings once an
original application under the said Act was admitted. In
the instant case, what is important is that by operation
of sub-rule (6) of r.10 of the 1965 Rules, the order of
B suspension would not survive after the period of 90 days
unless it was extended after review. Since admittedly the
review had not been conducted within 90 days from the ... -
date of suspension, it became invalid after 90 days, as
neither there was any review nor extension within the
c said period of 90 days. Subsequent review and extension
could not revive the order which had already become
invalid after the expiry of 90 days from the date of
suspension. The Court is not inclined to interfere with the
order of the High Court. [Para 11 and 12) [570-B-F]
D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (C) No. 6661 "
of 2006.
From the Judgment & Order dated 1.9.2005 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. (S) No. 2569 of
E 2005.
Harish Chandra, M. Khairati, B.K. Prasad, Anil Katiyar for
the Petitioners. ~
Raj Kumar Gupta, Mukul Dubey, Sunil K. Gupta, Praveen
F Chaturvedi for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. This Special Leave Petition has
been filed by the Union of India and its officers in the Ministry
G of Defence against the judgment and order dated 1st
~ .
September, 2005, passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court ·
at Jabalpur in Writ Petition (S) No.2569 of 2005, dismissing
the same. The respondent, who was working as a Civilian Motor 1
Driver-II in the establishment of the Senior Quality Assurance
H Officer, Senior Quality Assurance Establishment (Armaments)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DIPAK MALI 567
[ALTA.MAS KABIR, J.]
in the Gun Carriage Factory at Jabalpur, was suspended A
pending inquiry on 10th August, 2002. Under Rule 10 of the
Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 amended by
Notification dated 23rd December, 2003, Sub-Rules (6) and
(7) were inserted. As the same are relevant to the facts of this
case, the same are extracted hereinbelow : B
"(6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have
been made under this rules shall be reviewed by the
authority competent to modify or revoke the suspension,
before expiry of ninety days from the date of order of
suspension, on the recommendation of the Review C
Committee constituted for the purposes and pass orders
either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent
reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended
period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not
-.Y be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty dates D
at a time.
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules 5, an
order of suspension made or deemed to have been made
under sub-rules (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after E
a period ninety days unless it is extended after review, for
a further period before the expiry of ninety days."
-\
• 2. The aforesaid amendment came into effect from 2nd
June, 2004, but as a Review Committee was not constituted,
the respondent's suspension was not reviewed as required by F
the amended Rules. The respondent, therefore, claimed that the
suspension order must be deemed to have lapsed and
accordingly, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal
by filing O.A. No.540/2004 for a declaration that the suspension
order dated 10th August, 2002, became invalid on the expiry
' t of 90 days from the date on which Sub-Rules (6) and (7) of Rule
10 came into force, since the same had not been extended by
the Review Committee.
3. There is no dispute that the suspension of the H
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A respondent was not extended. The Tribunal, accordingly,
allowed the application filed by the respondent and by its order
dated 29th March, 2005, quashed the suspension order dated
10th August, 2002. The said order of the Tribunal was
questioned before the High Court on the ground that while Sub-
B Rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10 came into force only on 2nd June,
2004, the application had been made prematurely in July, 2004
even before the expiry of three months. It was contended that
since the matter was subjudice on account of the pendency of
,. .
the Original Application filed by the respondent before the expiry
C of 90 days from 2nd June, 2004, the petitioners were unable
to review the respondent's case.
4. Dealing with the said contention the High Court held that
since there was no interim stay in O.A.No.540/2004 filed by the
respondent, there was nothing to prevent the petitioners from
D reviewing the suspension within 90 days from 2nd June, 2004. ~
On such ground the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
5. It is against the said order of the High Court that the
present Special Leave Petition has been filed.
E 6. On behalf of the Union of India, it was not denied that
the amended provisions of Rule 10 came into effect from 2nd
June, 2004, and that the case of the Respondent was reviewed
on 20th October, 2004, beyond the period envisaged under
Sub-rule (6) thereof. It was, however, contended that the delay
F in conducting the review was not on account of any laches on
the part of the petitioners, but having regard to the fact that the
Respondent filed QA No.540 of 2004, before the Central
Administrative Tribunal in July, 2004, and the same was
disposed of by the Tribunal on 18th August, 2004, during which
G period the petitioner was unable to take any action under Rule .
·~
10 in view of the provisions of Section 19(4) of the t •
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. which provides that where
an application has been admitted by a Tribunal under Sub-
sectron (3), every proceeding under the relevant service rules
H as to redressal of grievances in relation to the subject matter
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DIPAK MALI 569
) [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.)
of such application pending immediately before such A
admission, shall abate, and save as otherwise provided by the
Tribunal, no appeal or revision in relation to such matter shall
thereafter be entertained under such rules.
7. It was submitted that since the proceedings were B
pending before the Tribunal, the Petitioner had no option but
_ )( to stay its hands in regard to the proceedings against the
respondent. It was also submitted that on 20th October, 2004,
when the Reviewing Committee took up the Petitioners' case,
it extended the period of suspension, which was again
extended thereafter by order dated 8th April, 2005. Learned
c
counsel for the petitioner submitted that having regard to the
above, the order passed by the High Court upholding the order
of the Central Administrative Tribunal was liable to be set aside
_y along with the order passed by the learned Tribunal.
D
8. On behalf of the Respondents, it was urged that Section
19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, did not
contemplate stay but abatement of proceedings before other
authorities once an application was admitted by the Central
Administrative Tribunal. By virtue of Sub-section (4) of Section E
19, on admission of such application proceedings pending
before other Courts and Forums would abate unless otherwise
~ directed by the Tribunal.
4
9. Learned counsel contended that in the absence of any
F
stay, nothing prevented the petitioners from reviewing the
petitioner's case and the explanation forthcoming for not taking
steps under Sub-section (6) of Section 7 must inure to the
benefit of the respondent.
\
10. Having carefully considered the submissions made on G
, t
behalf of the parties and having also considered the relevant
dates relating to suspension of the Respondent and when the
Petitioner's case came up for review on 20th October, 2004,
we are inclined to agree with the views expressed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, as confirmed by the High H
570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
{:
A Court, that having regard to the amended provisions of Sub-
rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10, the review for modification or
revocation of the order of suspension was required to be done
before the expiry of 90 days from the date of order of
suspension and as categorically provided under Sub-rule (7),
B the order of suspension made or deemed would not be valid
after a period of 90 days unless it was extended after review
for a further period of 90 days.
, -
11. The case sought to be made out on behalf of the
petitioner, Union of India as to the cause of delay in reviewing
c the Respondent's case, is not very convincing. Section 19(4)
of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, speaks of abatement
of proceedings once an original application under the said Act
was admitted. In this case, what is important is that by operation
of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 of the 1965 Rules, the order of
D suspension would not survive after the period of 90 days unless
it was extended after review. Since admittedly the review had "-
not been conducted within 90 days from the date of suspension,
it became invalid after 90 days, since neither was there any
review nor extension within the said period of 90 days.
E Subsequent review and extension, in our view, could not revive
the order which had already become invalid after the expiry of
90 days from the date of suspension.
12. For the said reasons, we are not inclined to interfere "
F with the impugned order of the High Court and the Special
Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
13. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
RP. SLP dismissed.
+ •
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "suspension"Sign in to search