JUDGMENT (ORAL)

06.05.2026

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The respondent was placed under suspension by the following order dated 17 June 2017:

“ORDER

Whereas, departmental proceedings are contemplated against Shri Navneet Kumar, Deputy Commissioner of Customs, ACC, Kolkata.

Now therefore, the President in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 10(1) (a) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 hereby places said Shri Navneet Kumar, Deputy Commissioner under suspension with Immediate effect.

It is further ordered that during the period of suspension, the headquarters of Shri Navneet Kumar, Deputy Commissioner will be the office of Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata Zone and said Shri Navneet Kumar shall not leave the headquarters without obtaining the pervious permission of the competent authority. He will be entitled to receive subsistence allowance as per FR. 53.

By order and in the name of the President

Sd/-

(Sukh Lal Meena)

Under Secretary to the Government of India”

2. Asserting that the suspension could not continue for more than six months without any charge-sheet having been issued to him, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal^{1“the Tribunal”, hereinafter} by way of OA 915/2018, seeking quashing of the suspension order and for permission to rejoin service.

3. The Tribunal has allowed the OA by the following order dated 2 April 2018:

“Despite opportunities, reply has not been filed. Shri R.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the controversy is squarely covered by judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in A.K. Chaudhary v. UOI [2015 AIR (SC) 2389] as also the Order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.4159/2017 dated 21.11.2017.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant is aggrieved of his continuous suspension beyond 90 days without serving the charge sheet. The applicant was placed under suspension vide order dated 17.06.2017 (Annexure A-1) in contemplation of the departmental proceedings without mentioning the period of suspension. The said suspension was further continued vide order dated 13.09.2017(Annexure A-2) for a further period of 180 days on the recommendations of the Review Committee. Admittedly, till date no charge sheet has been issued. Considering the ratio of the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case(supra), this Tribunal passed the following directions in OA No.4159/2017 vide its Order dated 21.12.2017:-

''4. This OA is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders for extension of the suspension of the applicant (Annexure A-2 to A-4) are hereby set aside. The applicant shall be treated to be in service after expiry of 90 days. Insofar as the initial period of 90 days is concerned, the respondents will take decision in accordance with law under Fundamental Rule 54-B. The applicant will be entitled to the salary after the expiry of 90 days of initial suspension. The respondents are directed to implement the above directions within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs."

3. The present OA is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgments.”

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Union of India^{2“UOI”, hereinafter} has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition.

5. We have heard Mr. P.S. Singh, learned CGSC for the petitioners and Mr. R.V. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent.

6. The impugned order, on a plain reading, discloses that it has been passed solely on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India^{3AIR 2015 SC 2389}. As it stands, the impugned order may not be entirely sustainable as Ajay Kumar Choudhary case has subsequently been examined by this Court in various decisions including GNCTD v. Dr. Rishi Anand^{42017 SCC OnLine Del 10506}, Dinesh Bishnoi v. Union of India^{52023 SCC OnLine Del 4023} and most recently by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Pramod Kumar v. UOI⁶²⁰²⁶