AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Justice Ranjit More, Chairman:
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
The applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking, inter alia, quashing of the continuation of his suspension beyond the period of 270 days from the date of his initial suspension, as also the orders dated 15.09.2025 and 13.03.2026 extending the period of his suspension, and a direction for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.
Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the suspension order was issued under Rule 10(1)(a) ofCentral Administrative Tribunal the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, on 20.12.2024. He further submits that the period of 270 days expired on 15.09.2025 and thereafter, on 12.11.2025, the charge-sheet was issued. Relying upon the second proviso to Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, he submits that the suspension order should not have been continued after expiry of 270 days from the date of issuance thereof.
Mr. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that as on date, the charge-sheet has been issued and, therefore, the second proviso to Rule 10(7) would not come to the rescue of the applicant. He submits that the O.A. is without merit and deserves to be dismissed. He also submits that the delay occurred as the records of the case were with the CBI. He further submits that the charges are grave against the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the pleadings, we find merit in the O.A.
The second proviso to Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, reads as under:
Central Administrative Tribunal“Provided further that in a case where no charge-sheet is issued under these rules, the total period under suspension or deemed suspension, as the case may be, including any extended period in terms of sub-rule (6) shall not exceed,-
(a)two hundred seventy days from the date of order of suspension, if the Government servant is placed under suspension in terms of Clause (a) of sub-rule (1); or….”
Since the suspension order was issued invoking the provisions of sub-rule (1)(a) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, it could continue at the most for a period of 270 days. Admittedly, the period of 270 days expired on 15.09.2025 and the respondents thereafter could not have continued the applicant's suspension. In terms of the second proviso to Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the issuance of the charge-sheet subsequent to expiry of the period of 270 days does not make any difference. If the charges are grave, the respondents are always at liberty to hold an inquiry and, as a matter of fact, they have initiated the inquiry by issuing a charge memorandum to the applicant. However, in terms of the second proviso to Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the applicant's suspension could not continue beyond 270 days.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find merit in the present O.A. The continuation of the applicant's suspension beyond the permissible period under the Central Administrative Tribunal second proviso to Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed in the following terms:
The continuation of the applicant's suspension w.e.f. 16.09.2025 is held to be unsustainable and is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the orders dated 15.09.2025 and 13.03.2026, insofar as they extend the applicant's suspension beyond the aforesaid period, are also quashed and set aside.
The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in service w.e.f. 16.09.2025, with all consequential benefits in accordance with law, including salary and other service benefits.
The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.