Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 7961
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Kumar Rajesh Chandra, A.M., Rajveer Singh Verma, J.
Ashok Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
OA/051/00678/2022
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 servant cannot exceed three months without a charge sheet, as per Supreme Court guidelines and CCS (CCA) Rules.
Headnote:(A) CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule 10(6) - Suspension of government servant - The applicant challenged the extension of suspension beyond three months without issuance of charge sheet, citing violation of Supreme Court guidelines and DoPT directives. The Tribunal found the extended suspension unlawful as the charge sheet was served after the stipulated period. (Paras 5-12)
(B) Legal principles - The court emphasized adherence to the established rules regarding suspension and the necessity of timely issuance of charge sheets to ensure fair treatment of employees. (Paras 7-9)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was suspended on 03.03.2020, and a charge sheet was issued on 06.06.2022, over two years later. The applicant argued that the suspension was unjustified and sought revocation.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal quashed the extension of suspension, ruling that it was unlawful due to delayed charge sheet issuance.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the continued suspension complied with legal requirements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the extension of suspension beyond three months without a charge sheet contravened established legal guidelines.
Result: The OA is allowed, and the suspension is quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the applicant's suspension was challenged due to procedural violations. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. the tribunal emphasized compliance with suspension rules. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. extension of suspension without charge sheet is unlawful. (Para 11) |
| 4. the oa was allowed, and the suspension was quashed. (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-388 dated 03.03.2020 (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/Ashok Kumar/GDH/2021-22 dated 06.05.2022 (Annexure-A/4).
(iii) Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension as duty from 03.06.2020 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 SPM Tisri SO in Giridih HO he was placed under suspension vide the impugned order dated 03.03.2020 (Annexure A/1) and he is getting the same subsistence allowance till today after review of the suspension order from time to time. The applicant appealed to DPS Ranchi on 07.01.2022 (Annexure A/2) for revocation of order of suspension. When his appeal was not decided he preferred OA No 121 of 2022 and this Tribunal after hearing both the parties directed the respondents to consider and take decision on appeal dated 07.01.2022 of applicant within four weeks vide order dated 17.02.2022 (Annexure-A/3). Thereafter, the respondents rejected the appeal of applicant on 06.05.2022 (Annexure-A/4) mentioning that continuation of his suspension is necessary on the ground of non-issuance of charge sheet against the applicant 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 31.05.2022 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. 48,00,000/- came to light at Giridih HO/Giridih Town SO in SB deposit/payments when the applicant was working as Postmaster, Giridih HO during different period. It is submitted that the applicant was paid subsistence allowance after suspension and a memorandum of charges has
