2009 (12) TMI 975

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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 purpose....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 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 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that on 20th October, 2004, when the Reviewing Committee took up the Petitioners' case, 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 Secti....