SUNEEL DUTT Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN,J. -
(1.)The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive reliefs:
"i) That in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances the impugned extension order of the petitioner dated 26.06.2020 may kindly be quashed and set aside and revoke the suspension of the petitioner in the interest of justice and fair play.
ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to revoke the suspension order of the petitioner and reinstate the petitioner as per law laid down in CWP No. 4915 of 2010 titled Puran Chand Sharma vs. State of H.P. & another vide judgment dated 31.12.2010 on a verdict rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India and others vs. Dipak Mali, (2010) 2 SCC (Annexure P-5) along with all consequential benefits."
(2.)The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 21.12.2019 as he remained in custody. Admittedly, such suspension order was not reviewed and extended in terms of Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules within the prescribed period of 90 days from the date of suspension.
(3.)Rule 10(7) of CCS (CCA) Rules reads as under:
["(7) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (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.]"
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.