Union Of India vs Sh.Gabdulal Meena
2009 Latest Caselaw 4661 Del

*                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           W.P. (C.) No. 3528/2008

%                         Date of Decision: 16.11.2009

Union of India                                              .... Petitioners

                         Through: Mr.H.K.Gangwani, Advocate.

                                   Versus

Sh.Gabdulal Meena                                          .... Respondent

                         Through: Mr.Sant Lal, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

1.      Whether reporters of Local papers may be               YES
        allowed to see the judgment?
2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                 NO
3.      Whether the judgment should be reported in             NO
        the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioner have impugned the order dated 17th September,

2007 passed in OA No. 2359/2006, Sh. Gabdulal Meena Versus Union

of India and Others directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondents

from the original date of his suspension 27th July, 2004 and to grant

him all the consequential benefits as his suspension was not reviewed

within ninety days. The petitioner has challenged the order contending

that the suspension order was valid for ninety days and therefore the

respondent could not be reinstated and consequential benefit granted

during the period the suspension of the respondent was valid.

The Tribunal had held that since the petitioner was placed on

suspension w.e.f. 27.7.2004 and the order of suspension was reviewed

on 23.12.2004 and the decision to continue suspension was not taken

within 90 days, the suspension from the 27th July, 2004 became

invalid.

The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on rule 10(7) of CCS

(CCA) Rules contemplating that an order of suspension made under

sub-rule 1 or 2 of Rule 10 is not valid after a period of 90 days unless it

is extended after review for the further period before the expiry of 90

days but that does not invalidate the order of suspension for ninety

days.

The learned counsel for the respondent in the circumstances also

admits that the suspension of the respondent was valid for ninety days

from 27th July, 2004 and the suspension became invalid after ninety

days as the suspension order was not reviewed within ninety days for

further suspension of the respondent. This has also been not disputed

by the learned counsel for the respondent after the inquiry, the

punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon the

respondent and he is no more in service.

In these circumstances the finding of the tribunal that the

suspension became invalid from 27th July, 2004 cannot be sustained.

The suspension of the respondent became invalid after ninety days from

27th July, 2004 as within ninety days it was not reviewed for further

period.

In the circumstances, it is held that the suspension of the

respondent for ninety days from 27.7.1997 was valid and the

respondent shall be entitled for consequential benefits, if any, in

accordance with the order passed against the respondent after inquiry.

The order of the Tribunal dated 17th September, 2007 is modified to this

extent that the suspension of the respondent was valid for ninety days

from 27th July, 2004. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed

of. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

NOVEMBER 16, 2009                                      VIPIN SANGHI, J.
'bm'