Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9258

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Urmita Datta, J, Suchitto Kumar Das, ACJ
Gouranga Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Coal – Respondent
O.A. 350/935/2023 | M.A. 350/447/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: H. Mohan, P. Mondal
For the Respondents: R. Halder

Extension under Rule 10(6) CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 must be within 90 days of initial suspension and may extend up to 180 days at a time; communication of the extension need not occur within 90 days; the challenged extension dated 09.05.2023 was within the permissible window and thus valid.

Headnote:(A) Laws and sections cited: CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 - Rule 10(1)(a); Rule 10(6); Rule 10(7); Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Section 19; CAT Act, 1985 - Section 20.

(B) Key legal principles or points: “The provision of sub-rule (7) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules itself makes it explicit that the earlier order of suspension shall not be valid after period of 90 days unless it was extended after review for a further period before the expiry of ninety days…”; “Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time.”; “The rules do not say that the review and the order for extension or for revocation of suspension are to be passed within 90 days...”; “The rules do not say that the order so passed has to be communicated to the applicant within 90 days.”

(C)

Facts of the case:
“The applicant was suspended under Rule 10(1)(a) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 vide Order dated 09.02.2023 with immediate effect.”; “During the pendency of aforesaid O.A. No. 394/2023, the suspension of the applicant was extended by the respondents for a period of 180 days w.e.f. 09.05.2023 vide First Suspension Extension Order dated 09.05.2023.”; “The extension order dated 09.05.2023 … was valid for 180 days from 09.05.2023 to 08.11.2023.”; “The order extending the suspension was issued on 09.05.2023.”; “Despatched to the applicant on 11/05/2023 and received by the applicant on 15/05/2023.”; “The respondents submitted that the OA was filed without following Section 20 of CAT Act 1985.”

(D)

Findings of Court:
“The extension order was passed on the 89th day of the suspension … within 90 days,”; “the extension was passed on the recommendation of the Review Committee … within 90 days”; “The rules merely say that the review and the order for extension or for revocation of suspension are to be passed within 90 days …”; “The rules do not say that the order … has to be communicated to the applicant within 90 days.”; “We find no irregularity in the impugned order dated 09.05.2023 …” (E)

Issues: “The main issues were the interpretation of sub-rule (6) and sub-rule (7) of Rule 10 … the extension within 90 days; the validity of extension order dated 09.05.2023; Maintainability under Section 20 of CAT Act 1985.” (F)

Ratio Decidendi: “The extension order was passed on the 89th day … and was within 90 days”; “The rules do not require communication within 90 days.”; “The rules merely say … within 90 days of the employee being put under suspension”; “therefore no irregularity in the extension.” (G)

Result: “We find no merit in the O.A. The O.A is dismissed accordingly. No costs.”

Table of Content
1. petitioner’s prayers and relief sought. (Para 1)
2. 90-day extension validity governs suspension; timely review/extension within 90 days is essential; delays in communication do not automatically invalidate a valid extension. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6)
3. court recognizes extension as valid under rule 10; assessment focuses on compliance with 90-day window and the effect of timing of communication. (Para 5 , 7)
4. oa dismissed; final order issued; no costs imposed. (Para 8)

ORDER

Per Hon’ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member :

1. The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 , praying for the following relief(s) highlighting the facts of the case:

“(a) To quash and set aside the Order of extension of suspension dated 09.05.2023 (Annexure A-3) issued by respondent no.2 and declare the same to be invalid being violative of Rule 10(7) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965.

(b) To reinstate the applicant after the expiry of suspension period of 90 days (09.05.2023) from the date of his initial suspension order i.e. from the 91st day (10.05.2023).

(c) To direct the respondents to make payment of monthly subsistence allowance to the applicant for 90 days i.e. from 09.02.2023 to 09.05.2023.

(d) To direct the Respondents to pay to the applicant interest @ 18% on all the above balances dues from the date the same became due to the applicant till the date of their realization.

(e) This Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to grant all consequential benefits with cost.

(f) Any other relief be granted, which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. ”

2. Applicant was posted as Deputy Assistant Coal Controller (DACC) in Coal Controller’s Organization (CCO), Ministry of Coal. The applicant was suspended under Rule 10(1)(a) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 vide Order dated 09.02.2023 with immediate effect. Applicant challenged the aforesaid order of suspension and for the release of Subsistence Allowance before this Hon’ble Tribunal vide O.A. No. 394/2023, which is still pending before this Hon’ble Tribunal. During the pendency of aforesaid O.A. No. 394/2023, the suspension of the applicant was extended by the respondents for a period of 180 days w.e.f. 09.05.2023 vide First Suspension Extension Order dated 09.05.2023.

3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that sub-rule (7) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules itself makes it explicit that the earlier order of suspension shall not be valid after period of 90 days Unless it was extended after review for a further period before the expiry of 90 days as such First Suspension Extension Order dated 09.05.2023 as well as the Suspension Order dated 09.02.2023 are invalid after 06.08.2023 i.e. w.e.f. 07.08.2023. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the order extending the period of suspension has been issued on 01.12.2023 i.e. after 117 days from 06.08.2023. The review committee failed to pass any order of extension as provided in Rule 10(6) within 90 days from First Suspension Extension Order dated 09.05.2023, inasmuch as, no order within the period of First Suspension Extension Order was sent to the applicant within 90 days from 09.05.2023. As a result, the suspension order dated 09.02.2023 came to an end on 06.08.2023 as provided in Rule 10(7) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that CAT Principal Bench in case of Daney Kumar Vs. Medical Council of India reported in MANU/CA/0649/2014 has held after interpreting sub-rule (6) and sub-rule (7) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) 1965 that:

“8. …The provision of sub-rule (7) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules itself makes it explicit that the earlier order of suspension shall not be valid after period of 90 days unless it was extended after review for a further period before the expiry of ninety days…”

Hon'ble High Court of Tripura dated 01.12.2022 in Review Petn. No. 66/2022 in case of The State of Tripura & Ors Vs Sri Saumitra Chakma has a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9258

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALUrmita Datta, J, Suchitto Kumar Das, ACJGouranga Singh – AppellantVersusUnion of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Coal – RespondentO.A. 350/935/2023 | M.A. 350/447/2024

Extension under Rule 10(6) CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 must be within 90 days of initial suspension and may extend up to 180 days at a time; communication of the extension need not occur within 90 days; the challenged extension dated 09.05.2023 was within the permissible window and thus valid.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Urmita Datta, J, Suchitto Kumar Das, ACJ
Gouranga Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Coal – Respondent
O.A. 350/935/2023 | M.A. 350/447/2024