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.”

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 Section 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. The 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 precise, 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 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 where 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 Government 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 on 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 (6) of Rule 10 was not adhered to and no review of the suspension order was undertaken by the Authority before the expiry of 90 days from the effective date of suspension or even from the date when the bail was granted to the petitioner or further from the date when he reported for duty to the employer, the continuation of the said suspension order and further extension thereof by reviewing the same, after the expiry of 90 days, as envisaged in Sub Rule (6) of Rule 10, is bad in law. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Union of India and others vs. Dipak Mali (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 222, and Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of