Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12709
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
B.K. Shrivastava, J, Santosh Mehra, A
Dr. U. Sreehari – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00009/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B.S. Venkatesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Vishnu Bhat
The court emphasized adherence to mandatory review and communication timelines for suspension extensions, ruling that non-compliance invalidates such orders.
Headnote:(A) CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule 10(6) and (7) - Extension of suspension - Extensions of suspension orders were quashed for not adhering to review timelines as per established procedural requirements, leading to the conclusion of invalid status of the said orders. (Paras 11-19)
(B) Quashing of orders - The Tribunal held that extensions of suspension were improperly communicated after expiry of effective periods, failing to meet mandatory review requirements. (Paragraph 19)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, reinstated after being compulsorily retired, contested the validity of multiple suspension extensions. These were deemed invalid due to procedural deficiencies in review and communication timelines, including a complaint of sexual harassment against him.
Findings of Court:
The extension orders were quashed due to failure to comply with the mandated review protocols. The applicant would be treated as being on duty for a specific period with entitled remunerations.
Issues: Whether the suspension extensions were communicated in compliance with the CCS (CCA) rules and appropriate timelines.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reiterated the mandatory requirement for timely reviews in suspension orders, highlighting that failure to meet these procedural safeguards invalidates extensions.
Result: OA is allowed; suspension extension orders quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial filing and reinstatement context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. challenging extension validity based on review protocols. (Para 4 , 10) |
| 3. assessment of extension orders and procedural failures. (Para 11 , 15 , 19) |
| 4. criteria for suspension validity and review requirements. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
ORDER
PER:
JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
1. This OA was initially filed on 27.12.2023, but after the amendment in the OA, the amended / revised OA has been filed on 05.01.2024 for quashment of the order dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure – A8), order dated 29.08.2023 (Annexure – A9), order dated 16.10.2023 (Annexure – A10) and the order dated 26.12.2023 (Annexure – A20). The reliefs claimed in para 8 of the OA are as under:-
“(a) Call for records of the case from the respondents and on perusal, (b) Quash and set aside - Order No. 75/26/2023-ECD-II dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure A8), Order No. 75/26/2023-ECD-II dated 29.08.2023 (Annexure A9), Order No. 75/26/2023- ECD-II dated 16.10.2023 (Annexure A10), Order No. 75/26/2023-ECD-II (Pt) dated 26.12.2023 (Annexure A20) all passed by the third respondent.
(c) Issue a consequential direction to the respondents to immediately reinstate the applicant into service and, (d) To direct that the entire period of suspension of the applicant from 23.02.2023 onwards should be treated as duty for all purposes and period spent on duty and declare that the applicant is entitled for full pay and allowances for entire period 23.2.2023.
(e) To issue directions for award of annual increments which are withheld from July 2022 and accrued arrears thereof.
(f) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit to grant to the applicant in the circumstances of the case including an order as to costs;”
2. These facts are admitted in this case:-
a) The applicant was working as “Scientist – D” and Officer-In- Charge at ICMR – National Institute of Malaria Research Field Unit, Bengaluru.
b) A complaint of sexual harassment was made against the applicant on 26.09.2020 by one temporary Project Staff.
c) The Disciplinary Authority issued a charge sheet dated 30.12.2022 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
d) The applicant was compulsorily retired from service earlier on 03.08.2021. Then he preferred an application before the Tribunal and by order dated 30.01.2023, the Tribunal passed the direction for reinstatement of the applicant and the applicant was reinstated.
e) The applicant was reinstated into service on 23.02.2023 vide Annexure – A3 and he was also placed under suspension on the same date vide Annexure – A4 dated 23.02.2023. The suspension was extended from time to time vide orders dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure – A8), vide order dated 29.08.2023 (Annexure – A9) and vide order dated 16.10.2023 (Annexure – A10).
3. Detailed pleadings are mentioned by the applicant in O.A., but looking to the original controversy raised by the applicant counsel at the time of final arguments, entire pleadings need not be mentioned here. Only relevant part of the pleadings is required to be mentioned. The applicant only challenged the validity of extension orders Annexure – A8, Annexure – A9 and Annexure – A10. Therefore, we are mentioning of the facts only related to the aforesaid orders.
4. As per applicant, the Rule 10 (7) of CCS (CCA) Rules, contemplates that the order of suspension has to be reviewed and communicated to the Charged Officer regarding extension or revoking before the expiry of 90 days from the date of passing of such suspension order. It is again submitted that if the suspension period is not extended after review before 90 days of the effective date of issue of order, the suspension order becomes invalid. He also placed reliance upon the Supreme Court judgment dated 15.12.2009 passed in Union of India and others vs. Dipak Mali in SLP No.6661/2006. He draws attention towards paras 10 and 11 of the aforesaid case.
5. Upon the basis of case laws and the Rule 10(7), it is submitted by the applicant that the r
