Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 7960
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Kumar Rajesh Chandra, A.M., Rajveer Singh Verma, J.
Shashi Bhushan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
OA/051/00677/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Om Prakash Singh
For the Respondents: Shri Rajendra Krishna, Sr. Standing Counsel, Shri Amit Sinha, Addl. Standing Counsel
Suspension of a government employee must not exceed three months without a charge sheet; failure to comply renders the extension unlawful.
Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Suspension of Government employee - Applicant under suspension since 27.09.2019 - Charge sheet not issued within three months - Extension of suspension quashed - Court reiterates that suspension should not exceed three months if no charge sheet is served, as per Supreme Court ruling in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary Vs. Union of India. (Paras 7, 11, 12)
(B) Government Servants - Suspension Review Committee - The necessity for adherence to rules regarding the extension of suspension is emphasized - Any extension must comply with relevant laws and guidelines, particularly the DoPT directives. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was suspended without a charge sheet for over two years, which contravenes established legal standards for suspension periods. The Tribunal had previously quashed a similar suspension order.
Findings of Court:
The extension of suspension beyond three months was unlawful and must be set aside, establishing the revocation date as 27.12.2019. The applicant is entitled to salary post the initial three months, minus subsistence allowance.
Issues: Whether the continuance of the applicant’s suspension was lawful given the absence of a charge sheet within the stipulated time frame.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the extension of suspension beyond three months without a charge sheet contravened established legal principles, reaffirming that adherence to procedural guidelines is mandatory.
Result: OA allowed; suspension extension quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. suspension without charge sheet for over two years is unlawful. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding the legality of suspension. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's observations on adherence to suspension rules and prior similar cases. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. extension of suspension beyond three months is unlawful. (Para 11) |
| 5. final decision to quash suspension extension and entitlement to salary. (Para 12) |
ORDER
Per Kumar Rajesh Chandra, A.M.:- Instant OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:-
“ (i) Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to revoke the order of suspension issued against the applicant by the SPOs Giridih under O/o SPOs Giridih Memo No. B-400 dated 27.09.2019 (Annenxure- A/1) and all the order of extension of period of suspension if issued by the respondents.
(ii) Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to quash the order of DPS Ranchi issued under O/o CPMG Jharkhand Circle Memo No. Vig/Misc.- Corr/Shashi Bhushan Kumar/GDH/2021-22 dated 06.05.2022 (Annexure-A/5).
(iii) Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension as duty from 27.12.2019 and pay all the arrear of pay and allowances.
(iv) Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to treat period of suspension as duty and pay all the consequential benefits to the applicant.
(v) Cost of the case may please be awarded to the applicant for expenditure of litigation and sorrow and pains suffered by applicant.
(vi) Any other relief/reliefs as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for the sake of justice.”
2. The case of the applicant is that while he was working as APM SB Counter Giridih HO he was placed under suspension vide the impugned order dated 27.09.2019 (Annexure A/1) and he is getting subsistence allowance till today vide order dated 16.10.2019 (Annexure A/2). When he did not receive any memorandum of charges from the respondents after more than two years he appealed to the respondent no. 4 on 08.01.2022 mentioning about the similar case, i.e. OA No. 270/2021 in which the Tribunal quashed the order of suspension. When his appeal was not decided he preferred OA No 122 of 2022 and this Tribunal after hearing both the parties directed the respondents to consider and take decision on appeal dated 08.01.2022 of applicant within four weeks vide order dated 17.02.2022 (Annexure-A/4). Thereafter, the respondents rejected the appeal of applicant on 06.05.2022 (Annexure-A/5) mentioning that continuation of his suspension is necessary on the ground of pendency of CBI investigation and since the fraudulent amount is more than Rs. 26 crores. The applicant has submitted that extension of suspension beyond three months, without issuance of charge sheet is against the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 15.02.2015 passed in case titled of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary Vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal No. 1912 of 2015 and also is in violation of the DoPT guidelines issued on 23.08.2016 pursuant to the said judgement, which clearly mentions that the order of suspension should not be extended beyond three months if within this period charge sheet is not served to the charged officer. It is further alleged by the applicant that now the respondents have issued memorandum of charges on 07.03.2022 under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 which, according to the applicant, should not be entertained in this OA as the instant OA was filed by him against the order of suspension and not against the charge sheet. Referring to the similar case, i.e. OA 270/2021 whereby the suspension order was quashed by the Tribunal vide order dated 02.11.2021 and the respondents did not challenge the order in higher judicial forum and executed the order, the applicant has prayed for similar order in this OA also. Hence, this OA.
3. The respondents have filed written statement in which it is submitted that a fraud involving Rs. 15,44,45,972/- came to light a
