Suspension orders must comply with statutory limits; exceeding these without charges invalidates the order.

Per: Justice Ranjit More, Chairman:

Having regard to the short controversy involved in the present matter, the OA has been taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. We, accordingly, heard Mr. S. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. V. S. R. Krishna, learned counsel for respondent no.2, and Mr. Thakur Virender Pratap Singh Charak, learned counsel for respondent no.1.

2. By this OA, the applicant is challenging the suspension order dated 10.08.2024 and the subsequent order dated 23.10.2024 by which the suspension was extended.

3. Mr. S. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that till date, no charge sheet has been issued to the applicant. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India & Anr., Civil Appeal No.1912/2015, the applicant is entitled to be reinstated by quashing and setting aside the initial suspension order as well as the subsequent order of its extension.

4. Mr. V. S. R. Krishna, learned counsel for respondent no.2, submits that sub-rule (7) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules was amended in the year 2022, and therefore, the decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), which was rendered in the year 2015, is not applicable to the present case.

5. Mr. Thakur Virender Pratap Singh Charak, learned counsel for respondent no.1, adopts the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for respondent no.2.

6. We have perused the pleadings on record along with annexures and the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respective respondents. We have also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

7. The applicant was placed under suspension by respondent no.2 vide order dated 10.08.2024 under Rule 10(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. For ready reference, the said order is reproduced as under:

“Whereas a disciplinary proceeding against Shri Rama Shankar Sharma, CoFA, CSIR-NIScPR, New Delhi is contemplated.

Now, therefore, the Vice, President, CSIR in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, hereby places the said Shri Rama Shankar Sharma, CoFA, CSIR-NIScPR, New Delhi under suspension with immediate effect.

It is further ordered that during the period that this order shall remain in force the headquarters of Shri Rama Shankar Sharma, CoFA, CSIR-NIScPR, New Delhi should be New Delhi and the said Shri Rama Shankar Sharma, CoFA, CSIR-NIScPR, New Delhi shall not leave the Headquarters without obtaining the previous permission of the Vice President, CSIR.”

8. Though the suspension was extended by subsequent orders dated 23.10.2024 and 25.04.2025, it is not disputed that, till date, no chargesheet has been issued to the applicant.

9. The Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra)

observed as under in para 14:

“14. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the concerned person to any Department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever