A public servant's suspension cannot exceed 270 days under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, if no chargesheet is served or if the mandatory legal timeframe for suspension has elapsed, necessitating reinstatement.

ORDER

The petition has been filed for the following relief;

“calling for records pertaining to the impugned order dated 20.06.2025 vide No.C-14012/16/2025/520 passed by the 2nd respondent and the consequential orders dated 17.09.2025 vide No.C-14012/16/2025, 15.12.2025 vide No.C-14012/16/2025/992 and 09.03.2026 vide No.C-14012/16/2025/1182 passed by the 3^rd respondent and quash the same and further, direct the respondents to post him as Assistant in a suitable department by granting all monetary and service benefits.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Lower Divisional Clerk and subsequently, got promoted as Assistant in Civil Supplies Department. Later, he was deputed to work as Sub Registrar in the registration department. While so, on 20.06.2025, he was placed under suspension by the second respondent for corruption. On 17.09.2025, order of suspension was extended for a period of 90 days by the third respondent.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made a representation dated

06.11.2025 before the second respondent to revoke his suspension order for which there is no response till date. Despite the representation given by the petitioner, the suspension order was further extended by the consequential orders dated 15.12.2025 and 09.03.2026. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

4.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the suspension cannot be extended beyond the period of 270 days from the date of order of suspension, in case the petitioner has been placed under suspension in terms of Rule 10(1)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. He would also submit that the respondents had totally ignored the Office Memoranda dated 21.07.2016 and 31.10.2016 issued by the Government of India which directed to follow the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs Union of India (Civil Appeal No.1912 of 2015 decided on 16.02.2015), wherein, it is directed as follows:

“14.We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the Suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the concerned person to any Department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence……. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.”

5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner cannot be reinstated into service as very serious allegations of corruption has been alleged against him and therefore, she vehemently opposed to quash the aforesaid impugned orders and prays for the dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. It is seen that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 20.06.2025 on the basis of video clips that had been circulated through Whatsapp showing as