The main legal point established in the judgment is that prolonged suspension without initiating any departmental proceeding, extensions of suspension without recorded reasons, and exceeding the maximum period of suspension are not permissible under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Apang, learned Standing Counsel for the APPSC representing the respondent No. 5 and Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Govt. Advocate for the State of Arunachal Pradesh representing the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.

2. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 29.10.2022 (Annexure-1) issued by the Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short APPSC), whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension purportedly in exercise of power under Article 371H of the Constitution of India. The further challenges are two orders dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure-5) and 24.07.2023 (Annexure-6), by way of which the suspension of the petitioner was extended for a period of three months on each occasion in purported exercise of power under Rule 10 (6) of the CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short (CCS (CCA), Rules, 1965). A further prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus is made to direct the respondent State to reinstate the petitioner in service.

3. The basic ground of such challenge is that no memorandum of charges has been framed till date against the petitioner though the suspension order was issued in contemplation of a departmental proceeding and therefore, such prolonged suspension is not sustainable under law as declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kr Choudhary Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291.

4. It is the further contention of the petitioner that though the period of suspension has been extended after purported review, however, such review is not supported by any reason and the affidavit filed by the respondent authorities also do not disclose any reason for reviewing the order of suspension and extending the same and therefore, such exercise is in derogation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Kr Choudhary(supra).

5. The respondent State though has filed an affidavit, however, except stating that the period of suspension has been extended in public interest under exigencies of circumstances, no other reason for requirement of extension of such suspension has been disclosed in the affidavit-in-opposition. It is the precise case of the respondent that the Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA), Rules, 1965 has been amended and after such amendment, the employer is empowered under proviso to Sub Rule 7 of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA), Rules, 1965, to continue such suspension for maximum 270 days from the date of suspension when the Government servant is placed under suspension in terms of Clause-“a” of Sub Rule 1 of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA), Rules, 1965.

6. This Court has given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Also perused the materials available on record.

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kr Choudhary (supra) observed that protracted periods of suspension, repeated renewal thereof, have regrettably become the norm and not the exception that they ought to be. On the basis of such consideration, the Hon’ble Apex Court mandated the maximum period of three months for continuation of suspension, if memo of charge is not filed within the period of 90 days and also mandated that for recording of reasons for extension of suspension. While mandating the aforesaid, the Hon’ble Apex Court concluded that such mandate shall adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity.

8. Coming to the case in hand, the impugned order dated 29.10.2022, reflects that the suspension order was issued in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding and subsequent to this, by an order dated 31.10.2022, all Group-A, B and C post under the establishment of APPSC were merged and encadred into a common cadre of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat. The service of the petitioner also comes under such order.

9. Thereafter, by order dated 25.01.2023, the order of suspension dated 29.10