Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
Thingnam Bhuben Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's analysis of validity under rule 10. (Para 1 , 7) |
| 2. review and validity of suspension orders. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. extension of suspension period actions. (Para 5) |
| 4. need for challenging subsequent orders. (Para 6) |
| 5. conclusion to quash the suspension. (Para 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT :
AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH, J.
[1] Heard Mr. Viscount Ahongsangbam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned GA appearing for the respondents.
[2] The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 27.02.2021 issued by the Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 10 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 CCS (CCA) Rules.
[3] The case of the petitioner is that under Rule 10 (6) of the CCS (CCA), Rules, 1965, it is, inter-alia, provided that an order of suspension made under sub-rule 1 of Rule 10 shall be reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension before expiry of 90 days from the effective date of suspension on the recommendation of the review committee constitute
Suspension orders exceeding the statutory timeframe without proper extensions or charges are invalid under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965.
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 failure to review a suspension order within 90 days invalidates the order and subsequent extension, creating a precedent for procedural compliance in disciplinary actions.
Suspension under CCS(CCA) Rules lapses if not reviewed before 90 days expiry; subsequent extensions cannot revive invalid order.
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.
Suspension orders requiring review must be executed within 90 days, and failure to serve charges timely invalidates extensions beyond this period.
The court established that prolonged suspension without initiation of departmental proceeding and without recording reasons for extension is impermissible. The court also clarified that the extension....
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
