Suspension of a government employee beyond 270 days without initiating disciplinary proceedings is unlawful, and extensions must be adequately justified, as set forth in applicable rules.

Judgment :

Pranjal Das. J.

1. Heard Mr. Subu Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh. Also heard Mr. Dicky Panging, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The instant writ appeal has been preferred by the State of Arunachal Pradesh aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 391 (AP)/2023.

3. The factual matrix in brief are that vide order dated 29.10.2022 petitioner who was a Private Secretary (Establishment) in the office of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC), Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar was placed under suspension pending initiation of departmental proceeding. By order dated 29.10.2022 issued by the Secretary of Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (herein after APPSC). The said suspension was extended by orders dated 25.01.2023 and 24.07.2023 exercising power under Rule 10(6) of the CCS (Classification Control and Appeal Rules 1965) (CCS/CCA Rules).

4. The basic contention of the writ petitioner was that the suspension was made in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. But the same was not initiated and the continuance of the suspension beyond the permissible period made it untenable in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs Union of India and another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 .

5. The learned single judge after considering the entire matter and hearing the parties found that the suspension order had exceeded the maximum permissible 270 days in terms of Rule 10(7) Proviso of the CCS CCA Rules 1965 and as the disciplinary proceedings was not yet initiated - it also violated the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra).

6. In such view of the matter, the original suspension order dated 29.10.2022, whereby the petitioner was first placed under suspension, was set aside and quashed. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service forthwith.

7. The relevant para.11, 12 and 13 of the Impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 390/2023 may be reproduced here in below.

“11. The settled proposition of law as discussed hereinabove and the admitted fact of non-issuance of charge memo in the present case, leads to an unhesitant view that this is a case of protracted suspension and repeated renewal without there being any recorded reason. Though, more than one year has elapsed from the date of suspension till date, admittedly, no departmental proceeding has been initiated as contemplated in the initial order of suspension dated 29.10.2022. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the action on the part of the respondent authority is not permissible under the aforesaid settled proposition of law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Kr Choudhary (supra).

12. Yet another facet of the issue is that the extension of suspension were ordered in exercise of power under Rule 10 (6) of the CCS (CCA) of the Rules, 1965 and therefore, in view of the amendment of the Proviso to Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the employer is no more vested with the power to continue the suspension inasmuch as such provision mandates that in a case, where no charge sheet is issued under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, total period of suspension or deem suspension including any extended period in terms of Rule 10 (6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, cannot be exceeded beyond 270 days from the date of order of suspension, if the order of suspension is in contemplation of departmental proceeding and in the case in hand, the