Mandatory suspension review within ninety days is essential; a later review cannot revive an invalid suspension order.

Mandatory suspension review under Rule 10(6) and Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 had to be completed within ninety days, and continuation of suspension depended on a timely extension after that review. No such review or extension was made within the prescribed period, so the suspension lapsed by operation of the rules. Pendency of proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 did not bar or suspend the service-rule obligation to review. A later review could not revive an order that had already become invalid, and the quashing of the suspension order remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order of suspension continued to remain valid when the mandatory review under Rule 10(6) and Rule 10(7) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 was not undertaken within ninety days and whether the pendency of proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 prevented such review.

Analysis: The amended suspension rules required review before expiry of ninety days from the date of suspension and made continuation of suspension dependent on extension after such review. The record showed that no review or extension was made within the prescribed period. The pendency of the original application before the Tribunal did not preserve the suspension, because Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 deals with abatement of pending proceedings and did not create any legal bar against timely review under the service rules. A review and extension made after the ninety-day period could not revive a suspension that had already become invalid by operation of the rules.

Conclusion: The suspension order ceased to be valid after the expiry of ninety days and the later review could not revive it. The challenge by the Union of India failed and the respondent succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the Special Leave Petition left undisturbed the quashing of the suspension order on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory review requirement.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a service rule makes suspension contingent on timely review and extension within a prescribed period, non-compliance causes the suspension to lapse by operation of law, and a subsequent review cannot revive an order that has already become invalid.

---