it2025_00914 — Applicant herein, an SPM, Aliganj Extension Post Office under R-3, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Lucknow Division was kept under suspension by Order, dated 28-1-2019 which suspension order was reviewed thrice and lastly it was extended on 25-10-2019. As extension orders are extended more than thrice, the order of R-3, dated 25-10-2019 is quashed and a direction was given to reinstate the Applicant forthwith

Applicant herein, an SPM, Aliganj Extension Post Office under R-3, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Lucknow Division was kept under suspension by Order, dated 28-1-2019 which suspension order was reviewed thrice and lastly it was extended on 25-10-2019. As extension orders are extended more than thrice, the order of R-3, dated 25-10-2019 is quashed and a direction was given to reinstate the Applicant forthwith — The chunk provided discusses two court cases, *Deepak Mali* and *Prem Nath Bali*, relied upon by the applicant in a disciplinary case involving an SPM's suspension. The case, *Shri Mahesh Kumar Rai v... — Facts: Applicant while working as SPM, Aliganj Extention Post Office was placed under suspension by Order, dated 28-1-2019 by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, R-3 herein invoking powers under Rule 10 (1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The sole argument of the Applicant is that the last extension of suspension of the Applicant is beyond the outer limit of 90 days and as such the Order, dated 25-10-2019 is not legally sustainable as Review Committee has no jurisdiction to recommend for extension of the suspension of the Applicant beyond the period of 90 days from the date of last meeting held. Hence this OA is filed. Respondent states that since the order extending the suspension of the Applicant has been passed by the Competent Authority under Rules and as such this OA is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. Applicant places reliance on two earlier judgments, especially the one "Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and another (Civil Appeal No. 958 of 2010) decided on 16-12-2015". Tribunal heard the pleadings. The moot question involved in this OA is, whether the extension of suspension of the Applicant, which was recommended by the review committee in the meeting held on 24-10-2019 beyond the period of 90 days from the date of last meeting of Review Committee is legally permissible or not℃ Applicant was placed under suspension by R-3 vide Order, dated 28-1-2019. The suspension was reviewed subsequently. The Review Committee reviewed the suspension in the meeting held on 24-10-2019 by recommending the extension of suspension for further 90 days which was communicated to the Applicant by letter, dated 25-10-2019. It is a well-known fact that the Review Committee should have to convene its meeting within 90 days from the date of last meeting held by it and not beyond that. In the instant case, the second review was made by the Review Committee in its meeting held on 23-7-2019 by extending the suspension of the Applicant for further 90 days and as such the Review Committee could have convened its meeting within 90 days. As regards counting of 90 days period, the Respondent reiterates that if the 90 days' period is counted from the date of suspension (28-1-2019), then the extension of suspension order of the Applicant is well within the time and if the suspension of the Applicant is counted from the date of last meeting of Review Committee, then it is beyond 90 days. Admittedly, the meeting of Review Committee has been held on 24-10-2019 beyond 90 days' period from the last meeting held on 23-7-2019. Hence the meeting of Review Committee became invalid and recommendation of extension of suspension of the Applicant is inoperative as the Review Committee meeting is itself invalid. Extension of suspension of the Applicant hence becomes invalid as has been held in the case of Union of India and others v. Deepak Mali, [ SLP (C) of 6661 of 2006, decided on 15-12-2009 ] . Another case relied upon by the Applicant in support of his claim is the case of Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and another, Civil Appeal No. 958 of 2010, decided on 16-12-2015. But this case does not help the Applicant as the cited case deals with disciplinary proceedings and not extension of suspension of an individual. Review Committee met thrice by extending the suspension of the Applicant for 90 days in each stroke by passing separate orders. Lastly, it was extended by order, dated 25-10-2019 and now it has been merged in the series of extension of suspension order.