The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. The Joint Secretary (Films) Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In the Review Application filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal, the Tribunal, while confirming the order passed in the Original Application, has held that there is no scope for reviewsince there is no error apparent on the face of the order passed inthe…
- Para 55. Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Additional Solicitor Generalappearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that while it istrue that as per Rule 10(7) of the Rules, extracted above, after theperiod of ninety days if there was no review made by the authoritythe order of suspension becomes…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 1.10.2012CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIANDTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.VIMALAW.P.No.24506 of 20121. The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Government of India, 'A' Wing Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.
The Joint Secretary (Films) Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Government of India, Assigned with current charge of Post of Director General Films Division, Mumbai, 'A' Wing, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.
The Director General, Films Division In-charge Dy.Director General Mumbai, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting No.24, Dr.G.Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai... Petitioners Vs.1. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal High Court Buildings Chennai – 600 104.2. A.Srinivasan.. Respondents PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India forissue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the firstrespondent relating to the proceedings in R.A.No.8 of 2012 inO.A.No.962 of 2011 and quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2For Petitioners :Mr.G.MasilamaniAdditional Solicitor General(South)for Mr.V.ViswanathanSenior Panel CounselFor Respondents: Mr.Rajanfor 2nd respondent ORDER(Order of this Court is made by P.JYOTHIMANI,J.)This writ petition has been filed against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 29.2.2012 dismissing the ReviewApplication filed by the petitioners herein to review an earlierorder dated 4.11.2011 passed in O.A.No.962 of 2011.2.
The second respondent was placed under suspension by an orderdated 14.7.2011 passed by the second petitioner herein. As per Rule10(7) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for brevity, "the Rules"), which is as follows: "Rule 10(7). An order of suspension made or deemed tohave been made under sub-rule (1) or (2) of this ruleshall not be valid after a period of ninety days unlessit is extended after review, for a further period beforethe expiry of ninety days. Provided that no such review of suspension shall benecessary in the case of deemed suspension undersub0rule (2), if the Government servant continues to beunder suspension at the time of completion of ninetydays of suspension and the ninety days' period in suchcase will count from the date the Government servantdetained in custody is released from detention or thedate on which the fact of his release from detention isintimated to his appointing authority, whichever islater.
",an order of suspension shall not be valid after a period of ninetydays, unless it is extended after review. Therefore, as per thestatutory rules, the order of suspension becomes invalid after ninetydays from the date of suspension, to wit after 12.10.2011. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3petitioners have passed an order of revocation on 14.11.2011,revoking the suspension of the second respondent with effect from13.10.2011.3. In the Original Application filed by the second respondentchallenging the order of suspension on the ground that after lapse ofninety days as per the Rules the suspension order becomes invalid andthe second respondent ought to have been reinstated, the Tribunal hasquashed the order of suspension dated 14.7.2011 and directed thesecond respondent to be reinstated forthwith.
In the Review Application filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal, the Tribunal, while confirming the order passed in the Original Application, has held that there is no scope for reviewsince there is no error apparent on the face of the order passed inthe Original Application.
Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Additional Solicitor Generalappearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that while it istrue that as per Rule 10(7) of the Rules, extracted above, after theperiod of ninety days if there was no review made by the authoritythe order of suspension becomes invalid, that invalidity will beoperative after the period of ninety days, whereas under the order ofthe Tribunal which was sought to be reviewed, the Tribunal has chosento quash the order of suspension itself, which means that thesuspension would be deemed to be invalid from the date of the orderdated 14.7.2011 and that is not the purport of Rule 10(7) of the Rules.6. On the other hand, Mr.Rajan, learned counsel appearing forthe second respondent would submit that inasmuch as in the ReviewApplication the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that there is noerror apparent on the face of the records, this Court, by exercisingthe powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot gointo the validity or otherwise of any of the terms of the originalorder passed by the Tribunal.7. On a reference to the original order passed by the Tribunal, it is evident that even though it has been the case of the secondrespondent throughout by relying on Rule 10(7) of the Rules thatafter the period of ninety days from the date of the original orderof suspension if no review was made the order of suspension becomesinvalid after ninety days, the Tribunal has simply quashed the orderdated 14.7.2011, which, in our considered view, as correctlysubmitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General, would go backto the date of suspension, which means that the Appointing Authoritywill be losing the right of suspension and that is not the intent andpurport of Rule 10(7) of the Rules. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
As far as Rule 10(6) of the Rules which has been relied uponby the learned counsel for the second respondent is concerned, whichis as follows: "(6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have beenmade under this rule shall be reviewed by the authoritywhich is competent to modify or revoke the suspensionbefore expiry of ninety days from the effective date ofsuspension on the recommendation of the Review Committeeconstituted for the purpose and pass orders eitherextending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent reviewsshall be made before expiry of the extended period ofsuspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for aperiod exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time. ",it only enables the Appointing Authority to review the order ofsuspension even before the expiry of the period of ninety days andthat enabling power does not mean that after ninety days the originalorder of suspension will become invalid from the date of passing ofthe order.9.
As correctly submitted by the learned Additional SolicitorGeneral, on a combined reading of Rules 10(6) and 10(7) of the Rules, extracted above, it is clear that after ninety days if the AppointingAuthority does not review the order of suspension, it means that byoperation of the statutory rules, the order of suspension lapses andone cannot say that it could be quashed to give a meaning as if theorder of suspension is invalid from the date of its passing. Exceptclarifying the order passed by the Tribunal to the said effect, weare of the view that there is no other observation required.10. Insofar as it relates to the direction given forreinstatement, it is admitted that the same is the subject matter ofdispute in another Original Application as well as Contempt Petition. That apart, it is the case of the Union of India that in the meantimethe post held by the second respondent itself has been transferredand the second respondent has completed five years of service in Chennai and he is liable to be transferred.
Ergo, we do not want toexpress any opinion on the same. It is for the Tribunal to decideabout the posting of the second respondent. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposedof. The order of the Tribunal in Original Application standsmodified to the effect that after the lapse of ninety days from thedate of the original order of suspension, the order of suspension https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5comes to an end and it is for the petitioners to make reinstatementin accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2012 isclosed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar/TRUE COPY/Sub Assistant RegistrarsasiTo:The RegistrarCentral Administrative TribunalHigh Court BuildingsChennai-104.+1CC to Mr.V.Viswanathan, Advocate SR.61266+2CCs to Mr.R.Ravikumar, Advocate SR.61468W.P.No.24506 of 2012GV(CO)KSA(11/10/2012)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 01 Oct 2012. The bench was P JYOTHIMANI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.