Suspension is a drastic measure that should not be used routinely; its extension beyond 90 days without compelling reasons or a timely issued charge-sheet, especially when it results in the denial of promotional prospects, constitutes an abuse of administrative power and malice in law.

[Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Munnuri Laxman] :

1) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), in O.A. No. 237/2022, whereby the reliefs sought by the petitioner, viz., quashing of the orders dated 16.07.2021 and 13.01.2022 extending his suspension, grant of promotion pursuant to the DPC held on 23.02.2022, and consequential financial benefits for the period of extended suspension along with all promotional benefits, were rejected.

2) The petitioner is an officer of the Indian Revenue Service (Customs and GST) of the 2012 batch. He was transferred from Lucknow to New Delhi vide order dated 01.04.2018. While he was posted at New Delhi, he was allotted departmental pool residential accommodation bearing Quarter No. A2D, Vatika Apartment, Mayapuri, New Delhi.

3) The initial genesis of the present proceedings is relating to an incident that allegedly occurred on the night of 3rd/4th September, 2019 at about 8:45 p.m. in between Shri S. Mahesh Kumar, Under Secretary, GST Council, and the petitioner's mother and widowed sister. The allegation was that the petitioner's family members misbehaved with Shri S. Mahesh Kumar, by using abusive language, and obstructed him from going downstairs from the roof of the flat. During such incident when Ms. Meghna Gupta, Assistant Commissioner, GST Policy Wing intervened, she too was subjected to abusive language by the petitioner's family members.

4) Subsequently, another complaint dated 05.09.2019 was also submitted by one Shri Sumit Garg, a former neighbour of the petitioner's family, alleging that the petitioner and his family members have also behaved rudely with him during the period they resided as neighbours till January, 2019. Such allegations were not reported immediately but complained after a delay of about nine months.

5) The aforesaid incident and complaint prompted the Central Government Office Residence Welfare Association of Vatika Apartment, 'A' Block, to pass a resolution asking the Principal Commissioner, GST, to cancel the allotment of the accommodation to petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the Principal Commissioner constituted an Enquiry Committee, which found that the petitioner's mother and his sister had misbehaved with Shri S. Mahesh Kumar and Ms. Meghna Gupta.

6) Based on such findings of the Enquiry Committee, the Estate Officer had issued an eviction notice dated 17.09.2019 to the petitioner, directing him to vacate the premises. Thereafter, an eviction order dated 14.02.2020 was passed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Appeal bearing OA No. PPA-2/2020 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, wherein he got protection. The appeal was ultimately disposed of by granting time to the petitioner to vacate the accommodation on or before 15.04.2021. The appellate court further held that the levy of damages at the rate of 40 times the revised licence fee was declared non est in the eyes of law. However, liberty was granted to the Competent Authority to initiate fresh proceedings for the assessment of damages in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

7) By order dated 22.10.2019, the petitioner was transferred from New Delhi to Jodhpur in the backdrop of the incident between the family members of the