SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2664

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA


2026:HHC:16306


CWP No. 4042 of 2026


Sh. Vinay Jishtu …….Petitioner Versus The State of H.P. and another … Respondents


For the petitioner u: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy AG.


Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.


Decided on: 07.05.2026


Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes


(Ajay Mohan Goel)


Judge


May 05, 2026


(narender)

Petitioner Advocates:Anuj Bali Ajay Kumar ,Respondent Advocate: AG

##PAGE1##

2026:HHC:16306 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 4042 of 2026 Decided on: 07.05.2026

Sh. Vinay Jishtu …….Petitioner

Versus The State of H.P. and another … Respondents

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Moha n Goel, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes _____________________________________________________

For the petitioner u: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy AG.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia

prayed for the following reliefs:-

“i) Kindly call for the records of the case and issue appropriate writ, orders or directions, in favour of the petitioner and against

the respondents and the order dated 08.12.2025 after 21.03.2026, being legally and unsustainable may kindly be

quashed and set aside.

ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to revoke the suspension order dated 8.12.2025, Annexure P-1 of the petitioner and reinstate the petitioner as a Senior Resident Doctor with the IGMC, Shimla, forthwith with all consequential

benefits.”

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2026 08:43:04 :::CIS

##PAGE2##

2

2026:HHC:16306

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner, who was serving as a Senior Resident in Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla, was arrested in FIR No. 22 of 2025, dated 04.09.2025, registered under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS and Sectio n 6 of the POCSO Act, at Mahila Police Station, New Shimla, Shimla, on 06.10.2025 and was placed under suspension vide order dated 08.12.2025 (Annexure P-1), w.e.f. 06.10.2025. Thoe petitioner was released on bail on 20.12.2025 and thereafter, he reported for duty to the employer and also requested for revocation of the suspension order on 22.12.2025. To be more phrecise, after release of the petitioner on bail on 20.12.2025, he reported for duty on 22.12.2025 and approached the Authority for the revocation of the suspension on 18.03.2026, i.e. before the expiry of 90 days from the effective date of suspension. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite that fact that there was no review of the suspension order within 90 days as from the date of the grant of bail to him or when he reported back for duty, the respondent-Department is still keeping the petitioner under

suspension, which act of the respondents is bad in law.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that in terms of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the

::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2026 08:43:04 :::CIS

##PAGE3##

3

2026:HHC:16306

appointing Authority or any Authority, to which it is subordinate or the Disciplinary Authority etc., as envisaged under the said Rule, by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension inter alia where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending or w here a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in terms of Sub Rule (2) thereof, a Goveornment servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the Appointing Authority with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether ohn a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding 48 hours. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that further in terms of Sub Rule (6) thereof, an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under said Rule shall be reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension before expiry of 90 days from the effective date of suspension on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders, either extending or revoking the suspension. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in the present case, in light of the fact that the procedure prescribed in Sub Rule

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top