https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183808 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. en-us Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:08:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183808 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183808