Suspension under CCS(CCA) Rules lapses if not reviewed before 90 days expiry; subsequent extensions cannot revive invalid order.

Judgment :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief(s):

“(a) The present writ petition may kindly be allowed by quashing orders dated 18.01.2025, 25.02.2025, 16.07.2025, 23.08.2025 & 20.11.2025 being contrary to law;

(b) Further, r..s may also kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner from 29.11.2024 and to treat the period of suspension from 29.11.2024 and onwards as duty period for all purposes (pay, increment, pension, ACPS etc.);

(c) Furthermore, respondents may also kindly be directed to draw & disburse the full pay to the petitioner for the period 29.11.2024 and onwards along with interest and”

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that the petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Professor (Dance-Kathak) in Education Department was placed under suspension vide order dated 31.8.2024 (Annexure P-1) under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter, ‘Rules’), in view of disciplinary proceedings contemplated against him, on account of complaint filed by girl students of JLNGC of Fine Art, Loharah, Shimla. Subsequently, the petitioner came to be issued charge sheet under Rule 14 of the Rules and at present, departmental enquiry is underway against the petitioner.

3. In nutshell, grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vishwa Bhushan and Ms. Anuja Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that though, in terms of rule-10(6) of the Rules, suspension is required to be reviewed after 90 days, in case of petitioner, suspension order was not reviewed within the statutory period of 90 days, as such, suspension of the petitioner, done vide order dated 31.8.2024, deserves to be revoked.

4. It emerges from the pleadings adduced on record by parties that for the period from 29.11.2024 to 17.11.2024, petitioner remained under suspension, without any statutory review of suspension. However, vide office order dated 18.1.2025, disciplinary authority reviewed the suspension and extended the same from 28.11.2024 to 26.2.2025, thereafter again on 26.2.2025, from 26.2.2025 to 26.5.2025, thereafter on 16.7.2025, from 26.5.2025 to 24.8.2025, on 23.8.2025 from 24.8.2025 to 21.11.2025 and finally on 20.11.2025, from 22.11.2025 to 22.2.2026.

5. Though, careful perusal of facts, noted above, suggests that with effect from 29.11.2024, repeatedly, suspension order dated 31.8.2024, passed against the petitioner, came to be reviewed, after every 90 days, but the question, which requires consideration in the case at hand, is, ‘whether initial suspension order dated 31.8.2024, which was otherwise required to be reviewed after expiry of 90 days i.e. on or before 28.11.2024, could have been reviewed vide order dated 18.1.2025 or not?’

6. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of sub-rules (6) and (7) of rule-10 of the Rules, which read as under:

“10. Suspension-

(6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of ninety days from the effective date of suspension, on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time.

(7) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under