DR S K SAXENA vs. UNION OF INDIA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

th
Date of decision: 4 February, 2021

+ W.P.(C) 5285/2020, CM APPL. 19057/2020
DR S K SAXENA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth Dias, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Arti Bansal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers:
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court be pleased to:
i) issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction,
thereby quashing the office order dated April 05,
2019 regarding suspension of the Petitioner and
Office orders dated July 29, 2019; November 07,
2019; January 31, 2019 and June 02, 2020
regarding extension of suspension of the Petitioner;
ii) issue an Order or Direction, thereby directing the
Respondent to revoke the suspension of the
Petitioner vide order dated April 05, 2019, in the
interest of justice, equity and fair play or in the
alternative revoke the same after a completion of 90
days from the date of suspension and treat the
suspension period as the Petitioner being on duty
with full pay and allowances;

W.P.(C) 5285/2020 Page 1/5

iii) issue an Order or Direction to the Respondent to
expedite the disciplinary proceedings against the
Petitioner and complete the same in a time bound
manner;
iv) award costs;
(v) pass any such further or other Orders as it may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
hereof.
2. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that suspension of the petitioner vide office order
dated April 05, 2019 is illegal as the same has not been reviewed
by the respondent in accordance with Rule 10 (6) of the CCS
(CCA) Rules and as such Rule 10 (7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules
shall have the effect.
3. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the
petitioner has stated that the suspension order though passed on
April 05, 2019, the same was required to be reviewed before the
expiry of 90 days by the competent authority. In the case in
hand, the review, as per the counter-affidavit filed by the
respondent, was done on July 15, 2019 whereas 90 days period
had expired on July 03, 2019 and it was only on July 29, 2019,
the order of extending the suspension was issued and in view of
the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India
v. Deepak Mali (2010) 2 SCC 222 , the suspension is bad. He
also states, initial review of the suspension being not in
accordance with Rule 10 (6), Rule 10 (7) will come into effect
and even the subsequent orders of extending the suspension are
also bad.
W.P.(C) 5285/2020 Page 2/5

4. In the Counter-affidavit of the respondent in Para 8 & 9,
the following has been stated:
“8. That in view of the above facts revealing prima
facie a serious lack of integrity on the part of petitioner,
major penalty proceedings are contemplated against the
Petitioner and in the public interest the Department of
Commerce placed the Petitioner under Suspension w.e.f
05.04.2019 and attached him with the office of Additional
Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Central Licensing
Area (CLA), New Delhi. A copy of suspension order
dated 05.04.2019 is annexed as Annexure R/4. The second
show cause notice was replied by Dr. S.K. Saxena on
10.04.2019 and same is annexed as Annexure R/5.
9. That the Review Committee held on 15.07.2019
considered the suspension case of the Petitioner and
recommended that the suspension of the Petitioner should
be extended till the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings
against him or further orders, whichever is earlier, which
was conveyed to him on 29.07.2019. A copy of letter
dated 29.07.2019 is annexed as Annexure R/6.”
5. Before dealing with the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to reproduce Rule 10(6)
and 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules as under:
“ 10. SUSPENSION
XXXXX
XXXXX
(6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been
made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority
competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before
expiry of ninety days from the effective date of
suspension, on the recommendation of the Review
Committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders
either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent
reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended
W.P.(C) 5285/2020 Page 3/5

period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be
for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a
time.
(7) 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 of ninety days unless it is extended
after review, for a further period before the expiry of
ninety days:
Provided that no such review of suspension shall be
necessary in the case of deemed suspension under
sub-rule (2), if the Government servant continues to
be under suspension at the time of completion of
ninety days of suspension and the ninety days
period in such case will count from the date the
Government servant detained in custody is released
from detention or the date on which the fact of his
release from detention is intimated to his
appointing authority, whichever is later.”
6. From perusal of the same it is clear that the suspension
order has to be reviewed before the expiry of 90 days. In other
words, the suspension order having been passed on April 05,
2019, the same was required to be reviewed on or before July 04,
2019. Concedingly, the suspension was reviewed by the Review
Committee only on July 15, 2019 and the decision thereof was
conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated July 29, 2019. Surely,
both the events have happened after July 04, 2019 and as such
Rule 10 (7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules shall come into play and the
Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of
India v. Deepak Mali (supra), shall be applicable in the facts of
this case. The relevant paragraph in the aforesaid Judgment
being Paragraph 11, is reproduced as under:
W.P.(C) 5285/2020 Page 4/5

“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 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.”
7. If the first review has not been carried out before the
expiry of 90 days, the order of suspension dated April 05, 2019
shall become invalid and as such the subsequent orders of
continuance of suspension of the petitioner shall also become
invalid. Accordingly, the suspension order dated April 05, 2019
being invalid it is quashed, the petitioner is entitled to claim
continuity in service and salary for the period from the date of
suspension till reinstatement subject to adjustment of suspension
allowance paid to the petitioner during this period.
The petition is allowed and disposed of.
CM APPL. 19057/2020
Dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
FEBRUARY 04, 2021 /jg
W.P.(C) 5285/2020 Page 5/5