Suspension orders requiring review must be executed within 90 days, and failure to serve charges timely invalidates extensions beyond this period.

JUDGMENT :

SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.

Heard learned counsel M. Kato for the petitioner and learned Senior Government Advocate Mr. S. Tapin for the respondent.

2. The petitioner Shri Bulang Marik has filed this petition to set aside and quash the impugned suspension order No. HOME-11011/11/2024/865 dated 02.06.2024 issued by the respondent No. 1 and to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the service of the petitioner, from the date when he was suspended, and to direct the respondents to allow the consequential service benefits.

3. It is contended that the suspension order of the petitioner was not reviewed within 90 (Ninety) days as the petitioner was in custody. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted interim bail which was made absolute on 18.01.2025. An RTI application was filed to find out why the suspension order was not reviewed even after 90 (Ninety) days. It is submitted that this writ petition was filed on 01.05.2025 and thereafter, the suspension order was reviewed when notice was issued in connection with this petition.

4. It is contended that the suspension order was not reviewed for more than 270 (Two Hundred and Seventy) days from the date of suspension of the petitioner. However, it is contended that review was pending from the initial date of suspension, for a total period of 366 (Three Hundred and Sixty Six) days. Thus, the initial order is required to be interfered with, and the petitioner is to be reinstated as per Rule 10 Sub-Rule 6 and 7 of the proviso to Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules {CCS (CCA) Rules for short}.

5. The petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhury-Versus-Union of India through its Secretary and Another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 and the decision of this Court in Santosh Kumar- versus-Union of India & ors. reported in 2025 (3) GLT 485.

6. It is further averred that no memorandum of charge has been served to the petitioner and the petitioner is still under suspension.

7. Per contra, learned Government Advocate laid stress in his argument, that the pertinent point is whence 90 (Ninety) days starts running, from the date of suspension. Learned Government Advocate has again reiterated the proviso to Rule 10 (7) of the CCS Rules and has highlighted the word ‘deemed suspension’.

Rule 10 (7) and the proviso to Rule 10 (7) reads :-

[(7) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub- rule (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days.

Provided that no such review of suspension shall be necessary in the case of deemed suspension under sub-rule (2), if the Government servant continues to be under suspension at the time of completion of ninety days of suspension and the ninety days' period in such case will count from the date of Govern- ment servant detained in custody is released from detention or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later.”

8. Stressing on the word whichever is later, it is submitted that it has been clearly mentioned in paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition of respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 that the petitioner was released on bail vide order dated 18.01.2025 and this fact was communicated to the authority vide letter No. PHQ/PB/DP-46/2024 dated 03.03.2025 from the Police Headquarters that the petitioner was released on bail vide order dated 18.01.2025. A copy of the communication is marked as Annexure-1 of the counter-affidavit.

9. As