2026:HHC:15032 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.18292 of 2025 Reserved on: 09.04.2026 Decided: 06.05.2026 __________________________________________________________________

Surendra Singh ...Petitioner Versus SJVN Ltd. and another ...Respondents ___________________u_______________________________________________

Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ¹ Yes For the petitioner: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Paras Dhaulta and h Mr. Abhinav M. Goel, Advocates.

gFor the respondents: Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Srishti Negi, i Advocate.

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge The petitioner by way of present writ petition, has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “a) That Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari quashing order dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) whereby the petitioner has been put

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings under SJVN Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules.

b) That Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner all the benefits as provided under FRSR Rule

53.”

2. Shorn of unnecessary deftails, the key facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was working as General Manager with respondent No.1-Company, while posted at Devsari Hydro Electric Project Tharali, District Chamoli, Uttrakhand, put under suspension vide order dated

04.07.2025, passed by respondent No.2.

h3. It has been averred that the petitioner has gapproached this Court contending that the order of suspension was required to be reviewed by the authority, which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension before expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension on the recommendation of the review committee constituted for the purpose. However, since the Article of Charges dated 08.10.2025 were served upon him on 10.10.2025, i.e., beyond the period of 90 days as contemplated under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short “CCS (CCA) Rules”), and no orders either extending or revoking the suspension of the petitioner have been passed by respondent No.1-Companyo, the said act on its part is arbitrary, discriminatory, wro ng, and illegal in the teeth of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India and another, (2015) 7 SCC 291 Respondent No.1-Company has its own Rules called as SJVN Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules (for short SJVN CDA Rules), but Rule 20 is silent about the aspect of period of suspension and thus, respondent No.1-Company, being a public sector undertaking under the Ministry of Power, Government of India, CCS (CCA) Rules, are to be taken into account. Further when the Rules are silent, the respondent No.1-Company falls back on the instructions/memorandum, issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT)

Government of India and the DoPT has issued the office memorandum dated 23.08.2016, which clearly provides that the suspension should not exceed beyond three months, if within three months charge-sheet is not served on the charged officer. o

4. It has also been a verred that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that while continuing the suspension of an employee, the disciplinary authority has to take into consideration whether the continuance of the employee in service would prejudice the investigation, trial, or enquiry by apprehending tampering with witnesses or documents, or whether continuance in office is likely to seriously subvert discipline. Once respondent No.1-Company had not served the charge-sheet within ninety days, the order of suspension is liable to be revoked in view of the instructions issued after the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary’s case (supra)

5. The respondents filed reply to the petition and averred that the petition filed by the pet