Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Pawan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
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 Rul
Suspension under CCS(CCA) Rules lapses if not reviewed before 90 days expiry; subsequent extensions cannot revive invalid order.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for timely review of suspension orders as per Rule 10(6) and 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, and the consequent invalidity of susp....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suspension order must be reviewed within 90 days as per the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and court judgments, and failure to do so renders the sus....
The extension of suspension orders without the recommendation of the Review Committee and failure to extend the suspension within the prescribed period rendered the suspension orders invalid.
The failure to review a suspension order within 90 days invalidates the order and subsequent extension, creating a precedent for procedural compliance in disciplinary actions.
The suspension order must be reviewed within 90 days as per Rule 10(7) of CCS (CCA) Rules, and the power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner.
The court emphasized the mandatory requirement of periodic review before extending the suspension period and the timely service of charge memo as per the CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965.
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.
A suspension order cannot extend beyond three months without a charge sheet and review, as established in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
