IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.6661 OF 2006  

Union of India & Ors. .. Petitioners

Vs.

Dipak Mali .. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. This Special Leave Petition has been filed by  

the Union of India and its officers in the Ministry  

of Defence against the judgment and order dated 1st  

September, 2005, passed by the Madhya Pradesh High  

1

Court at Jabalpur in Writ Petition (S) No.2569 of  

2005, dismissing the same.  The respondent, who was  

working  as  a  Civilian  Motor  Driver-II  in  the  

establishment  of  the  Senior  Quality  Assurance  

Officer,  Senior  Quality  Assurance  Establishment  

(Armaments)  in  the  Gun  Carriage  Factory  at  

Jabalpur,  was  suspended  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 :

“(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  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  

2

not be for a period exceeding one hundred  and eighty dates 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 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 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 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

3. There is no dispute that the suspension of the  

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-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 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  

4

nothing to prevent the petitioners from 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.

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 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  

OA  No.540  of  2004,  before  the  Central  

Administrative Tribunal in July, 2004, and the same  

was  disposed  of  by  the  Tribunal  on  18th August,  

5

2004, during which period the petitioner was unable  

to take any action under Rule 10 in view of the  

provisions of Section 19(4) of the Administrative  

Tribunals Act, 1985, which provides that where an  

application has been admitted by a Tribunal under  

Sub-section  (3),  every  proceeding  under  the  

relevant  service  rules  as  to  redressal  of  

grievances  in  relation  to  the  subject  matter  of  

such  application  pending  immediately  before  such  

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 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,  

6

it  extended  the  period  of  suspension,  which  was  

again extended thereafter by order dated 8th April,  

2005.  Learned 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  along  with  the  order  passed  by  the  

learned Tribunal.   

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 19, on admission of such application  

proceedings pending before other Courts and Forums  

would  abate  unless  otherwise  directed  by  the  

Tribunal.

7

9. Learned counsel contended that in the absence  

of any 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  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  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  

8

suspension and as categorically provided under Sub-

rule (7), 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  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 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  

9

review nor extension within the said period of 90  

days.   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 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.

…………………………………………J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

…………………………………………J. (MARKANDEY KATJU)

New Delhi, Dated: December 15, 2009.

10