Himachal Pradesh High Court: In a case addressing whether an initial order of suspension which is mandatorily reviewable before the expiry of ninety days from the effective date as per Rule 10(6) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (‘Rules’), be revived by a subsequent review undertaken after the 90 day period lapses, a Single Judge Bench of Sandeep Sharma, J., held that a suspension becomes invalid if it is not reviewed within the statutory period of 90 days as per Rule 10(6) of CCS(CCA) Rules, and subsequent review or extension orders cannot revive it. The Court set aside the suspension and directed reinstatement with retrospective effect from the date immediately following the ninety-day expiry.
Background:
The petitioner, an Assistant Professor (Dance-Kathak) in the Education Department, was placed under suspension on 31-8-2024 under Rule 10(1) of the Rules on account of contemplated disciplinary proceedings arising from a complaint by girl students of JLNGC of Fine Art, Shimla. A charge sheet under Rule 14 was thereafter issued and a departmental enquiry is underway.
The petitioner’s counsel urged that though under Rule 10(6) of the Rules, the initial suspension was required to be reviewed after ninety days, no such review was conducted within that period and therefore, the petitioner’s suspension deserved to be revoked. The petitioner submitted that for the period from 29-11-2024 to 17-11-2024, he remained under suspension without any statutory review of suspension, and the Disciplinary Authority first reviewed the suspension on 18-1-2025 and then extended it at successive 90-day intervals.
However, the State argued that any delay in review stood condoned by issuance of the fresh order dated 18-1-2025, emphasizing that no objection was raised by the petitioner at the time and that he had, without protest, accepted the extension orders passed at 90-day intervals thereafter.
Issue:
Whether initial suspension order dated 31-8-2024, which was otherwise required to be reviewed after expiry of 90 days i.e. on or before 28-11-2024, could have been reviewed vide order dated 18-1-2025 or not?
Analysis and Decision:
The Court analysed Rule 10(6) and 10(7) of the Rules and observed that a suspension order is required to be reviewed on or before the expiry of 90 days of effective date on the recommendation of Review Committee constituted for the purpose, failing which suspension order made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) shall not be valid.
The Court noted that the suspension order was issued on 31-8-2024, and it was necessarily required to be reviewed on or before 28-11-2024, but no steps were ever initiated by the Disciplinary Authority to review the suspension order from 28-11-2024 to 17-11-2025, rather, for the first time, suspension was reviewed vide order dated 18-1-2025 i.e. beyond the statutory period of 90 days.
The Court opined that since suspension order was not reviewed after expiry of 90 days i.e. on or before 28-11-2024, it lost its efficacy. The Court observed that subsequent extensions were of no consequence as inaction on the part of Disciplinary Authority to review order rendered the petitioner’s suspension invalid and that there was no occasion for the respondents to pass review orders which admittedly came to be passed after more than three months from the date of expiry of suspension order.
The Court relied on Union of India v. Dipak Mali, (2010) 2 SCC 222, and observed that review for modification or revocation of the order of suspension was required to be done before the expiry of 90 days from the date of order of suspension and as provided under Rule 10(7) of the Rules, the order of suspension made or deemed to be made would not be valid after a period of 90 days unless it was extended after review for a further period of 90 days.
Consequently, the Court, while allowing the petition, held that the suspension imposed by order dated 31-08-2024 and extended by subsequent extension orders was invalid and ordered it to be set aside. The Court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with retrospective effect from 29-11-2024, with an observation that the period of suspension from 29-11-2024 would be regulated as per the rules occupying the field.
[Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P., 2026 SCC OnLine HP 518, decided on 8-1-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Vishwa Bhushan and Anuja Mehta, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Rajan Kahol and Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Ravi Chauhan and Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General.