Judgment & Order (Oral)

Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment : N/A

Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced : Yes

Heard Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents.

2. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the suspension order vide No. TPT(B)-11023(14)/1/2024/339 dated 12.08.2025, issued on 20.08.2025, issued by the Commissioner, Transport Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, whereby the petitioner is placed under suspension in terms of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [hereinafter referred to as the “CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965”], pursuant to disciplinary proceedings being under way on the alleged malpractice in awarding work contracts, thereby incurring unauthorized expenditure, on the ground that the respondent authority has failed to review the suspension order within the mandatory period of 90 (ninety) days as per Sub-Rule (6) and (7) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Foreman in the Department of Transport, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, in the year 1997 and thereafter promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Auto) vide order dated 18.10.2010. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Auto) (Officiating) vide order dated 23.12.2021 in which the petitioner is serving.

4. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 12.08.2025 issued on 20.08.2025 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings relating to alleged malpractice in awarding contract works thereby incurring unauthorized expenditure.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that even after expiry of the mandatory period of 90 days from the effective date of suspension, the suspension order has neither been reviewed nor revoked in accordance with Sub-Rule (6) and (7) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 19.03.2026 seeking revocation of suspension and reinstatement in service, which has not been considered by the respondents.

6. Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suspension order was passed on 12.08.2025, which was issued on 20.08.2025 and the statutory period of 90 (ninety) days expired on 18.11.2025. He submits that the respondent authorities ought to have reviewed the suspension order before expiry of 90 (ninety) days; however, even after expiry of more than 129 (one hundred twenty-nine) days thereafter, the suspension order has neither been reviewed nor revoked, thereby illegally placing the petitioner under continued suspension in violation of Sub-Rule (6) and (7) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

7. He submits that the action of the respondent authorities is in clear violation of the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291. He further submits that the impugned suspension order dated 12.08.2025 has, in fact, ceased to operate w.e.f. 18.11.2025, as no review has been conducted within the mandatory period of 90 (ninety) days from the date of suspension. Accordingly, he submits that the suspension order dated 12.08.2025 may be set aside and quashed and a direction be issued for reinstatement of the petitioner in service forthwith.

8. Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension for malpractice in awarding contract works, thereby incurring unauthorized expenditure to the Government. He submits that a memorandum of charges has been issued to the petitioner vide order dated 07.04.2026 along with the statement of Articles of Charges, Statement of Imputation, list of documents and list of witnesses, w