' The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 12-11-1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The facts are that departmental action was started against the appellant and he was brought under suspension, by order dated 23-9-1984. The appellant challenged the suspension order on the ground that approval of the competent authority for the extension of suspension after every three months was not communicated to him. The learned lower Court has said that Rule 5(1) of Railway Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 does say that sending of IA intimation to the person under suspension is necessary. The learned representative of the appellant has not been able to cite any ruling in which it may be observed that giving of such an intimation is necessary.
So far as the question of extension of suspension after every three months is concerned Exhs. R.2 to R.5 show that the suspension was extended after every three months. Vide R. 4 the period of suspension which had expired on 22-3-1985 was extended to 22-6-1985. By the same order the period of suspension which was to expire on 22-6-1985 was extended to 22-9-1985. Learned counsel has argued that the provision is that the period of suspension can be extended after the expiry of the previous period of suspension and not before that. No doubt, the rules direct that the period of suspension is to be extended after the expiry, but the competent Authority may extend the period even before the expiry if it thinks that departmental proceedings started against the employee concerned cannot be completed. The material thing is that the competent authority should consider the case and if he thinks necessary he may extend the period of suspension. The grievance petition of the appellant was thus rightly disallowed.
3. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed.