Chandra Shekhar Saxena vs Director Of Education (Basic) And Anr. on 4 November, 1996
By the impugned judgment, the Delhi High Court came to
hold, as noted above, that CAT was not correct in remitting
the matter back to the appointing authority for
consideration of the matter afresh. It was, inter alia,
observed that if a question of law had been raised before
it, CAT was required to apply its mind and pass appropriate
orders. The impugned order of suspension was quashed. It was
held that the order dated 15.5.1998 cannot be treated to be
one passed under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10. It was held that
an order of suspension after release of the petitioner on
bail could not have been passed under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule
10 and such order could have been passed only in terms of
Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10. View expressed by a Full Bench of
the Allahabad High Court in Chandra Shekhar Saxena and Ors.
v. Director of Education (Basic) U.P.,Lucknow and Anr. (1997
Allahabad Law Journal 963) was followed. It was further held
that a combined reading of Rules 10(1), 10(2), 10(3), 10(4)
and 10(5)(a) makes the position clear that the order of
suspension was effective for the period of detention and not
beyond it where by legal fiction a person is deemed to be
under suspension for being in custody for a period exceeding
48 hours.