Vivek Kumar singh vs CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOM

O.A. No.408/2026
(R ESERVED ON 13.08.2026)


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
th
Pronounced on 27 August, 2026
Original Application No. 408 of 2026
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon’ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)

Vivek Kumar Singh, Son of Chiranjeev Kumar Singh, Resident of Kolaund
Narayanpur, Sherpur , District Mirzapur
....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Anil Kumar Singh, Shri Dhirendra P. Singh &
Shri Ramesh K. Tiwari
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of
Finance, Government of India, New Delhi
2. Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), North Block,
New Delhi
3. Principal Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Service
Tax, Meerut.
4. Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Shamli
5. Assistant Commissioner, CGST Range-Baraut, Division Shamli
……Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan
O R D E R
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):
Heard Shri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel assisted by Shri
Ramesh Kumar Tiwari and Shri Dhirendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the
applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:
I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, quashing the impugned order dated 11.04.2025
passed by Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax,
Meerut and consequential order dated 30.4.2025 and 29.12.2025
passed Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax ,
Meerut;

O.A. No.408/2026
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of the mandamus
commanding the Respondent to reinstate the Applicant on the post of
Inspector along with all consequential benefit including subsistence
allowance and all arrears in respect thereof and also to not interfere
with his peaceful functioning on the said post;
III. To issue any other order or direction in favour of the applicant which
this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the present facts and
circumstances of the case, so as to secure the ends of justice.
IV. Award cost of the instant application to the applicant.”

3. The brief facts as stated by applicant in the original application is that
the applicant was selected as Inspector, CGST on 20.07.2023 and thereafter, he
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
continuously working to the satisfaction of the respondents. An application was filed
by one Arman Ali for GST Number on 01.04.2025 before CBIC, Meerut Zone and
the applicant was no role to play at all as the decision was to be taken by the
Superintendent. Thereafter, the applicant requested for one day casual leave i.e. on
04.04.2025 and next two days were holiday. The applicant again filed an application
with permission to leave the headquarter on the ground of medical urgency as he
was go to Varanasi and thereafter, the applicant was directed to join his duties vide
letter dated 08.04.2025 issued by the respondents.
3.1 In the meantime, on 07.04.2025, an application was filed by one
Arman Ali before CBI, Anti Corruption, Ghaziabad, alleged therein that he filed an
application for GST Number and ARN Number was also received, but one Abhishek
Swami on behalf of the applicant, is demanded Rs.6000/- for the work to be done.
Accordingly, a First Information Report was lodged at CBI Police Station, ACB,
Ghaziabad against the applicant as well as said Abhishek Swami being RC
1202025A0007 under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3.2 On 09.04.2025, the applicant was totally unaware of the registration of
FIR, when he reached Shamli to join his duties, he was arrested by the CBI.
Consequently, the Principal Commissioner, CGST Meerut, passed an order dated
11.04.2025, by which, the applicant was put under deemed suspension w.e.f.
09.04.2025. Further, vide order dated 30.04.2025, the Principal Commissioner,
CGST, Meerut directed that the applicant is entitled for subsistence allowance equal
to half pay leave salary plus admissible dearness allowance.

O.A. No.408/2026
3.3 The Investigating Officer, subsequently filed the charge-sheet under
Sections 61(2) of BNS read with Section 7 & 7A of PC Act, 1988 (as amended in
2018) and cognizance of the same was also taken by learned Trial Court.
3.4 The applicant was granted bail by the Allahabad High Court vide order
dated 17.09.2025 and was released from custody on 25.09.2025. Thereafter, he
submitted an application on 05.10.2025 before the Assistant Commissioner, Division
Shamli, requesting permission to rejoin duty from 06.10.2025, but no heed was paid.
However, the Principal Commissioner passed an order dated 29.12.2025, by which
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
the period of suspension of the applicant was extended up to 03.07.2026. Aggrieved
by the continued suspension, the applicant approached this Tribunal, challenging
the suspension orders and seeking reinstatement along with consequential benefits
and payment of subsistence allowance.
4. On the other hand ,counter reply was filed by the respondents on
03.07.2026, wherein it has been stated that the applicant's suspension was lawful
and was being reviewed in accordance with the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The
subsistence allowance has already been granted to the applicant. The Review
Committee for review of suspension of the applicant was held on 17.12.2025, within
90 days from receipt of information regarding his release on bail. Therefore, the
continuation of suspension was in accordance with Rule 10(6) and 10(7) of the CCS
(CCA) Rules, 1965. The charge-sheet has already been filed on 30.05.2025 before
the CBI Court. The applicant was attached with Shamli Division during suspension
period. Hence, the Original Application is liable to be dismissed
5. In reply, rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant on
06.07.2026, wherein, reiterated the same averments as made in the Original
Application.
6. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on 30.07.2026,
wherein it has been stated that the matter was again reviewed by the Review
Committee on 23.06.2026 and Review Committee recommended further extension
of 90 days i.e. from 03.07.2026 to 30.09.2026 and in this regard, order dated

O.A. No.408/2026
23.06.2026 has already been issued. Subsistence allowance for the period from
09.04.2025 to 30.06.2026 has also been processed and paid to the applicant.
7. In reply, Supplementary rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the
applicant on 04.08.2026 , wherein, reiterated the same averments as made in the
Original Application.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant assailed the impugned order of
suspension as well as extension of suspension order on the ground there is no
ground or justification for extending the suspension of the applicant by the
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
Suspension Review Committee. The Departmental proceedings has not been
initiated as yet. The currency of suspension order should not extend beyond three
months, if within this period, the Memorandum of charges/chargesheet is not served
on the delinquent officer and if the Memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served,
a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. The
suspension of the applicant was extended third time without assigning any reason.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that a
considerable period of almost more than one year has been passed without there
being any departmental charge sheet issued against the applicant and merely on the
hypothetical grounds the extension of suspension is being made, which has
seriously prejudiced the applicant itself.
10. Learned counsel further submitted that in the criminal case, charge
sheet has been filed and further the pendency of the criminal case would take a long
time and till then the applicant could not be kept under suspension on the ground of
pendency of the criminal case.
11. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court the extension of
suspension is contrary to Rule 10(7) & 10(6) of the CCS (CCA Rules), 1965.
Merely because the criminal case was pending, the applicant could not be kept
under suspension indefinitely. He had already been released on bail by the
Allahabad High Court.

O.A. No.408/2026
12. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Tribunal towards the
following judgment
i. In the case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary Vs. Union of India , reported in 2015
Volume 7 SCC Page 291 passed by the Apex Court.
ii. In case of Angad Singh Vs. State of UP passed in Writ A No.55679/2009 by
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
iii. In case of Mukil Kumar Tyagi Vs. State of UP & Ors. Passed in Writ A
No.2326/2023 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

13. On the other hand, Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that
the applicant was arrested on 09.04.2025 and was in police custody till 25.09.2025
and as such, the respondents issued impugned order dated 30.04.2025, by which
the applicant was deemed suspension w.e.f. date of his arrest i.e., 09.04.2025. The
suspension of the applicant was reviewed by the Suspension Review Committee
and the said Committee after considering the all the facts, extended the suspension
order from time to time with reasoned order and there is no illegality or infirmity in
the extension of suspension order.
14. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that in the
criminal proceeding, charge-sheet has already been filed on 30.05.2025. The case
is under trial and as such, if applicant is reinstated in service, there is possibility of
influencing the witnesses by the applicant. The Officers facing criminal/departmental
proceedings on serious charges of corruption should be placed under suspension
and their suspension should not be revoked in a routine manner.
15. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the
suspension Review Committee after considering after considering entire
circumstances of the case, extended the suspension order of the applicant from time
to time.
16. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel
for the respondents and gone through the submissions, so raised by them and
perused the record.

O.A. No.408/2026
17. From perusal of the records, it appears that a FIR being
RC1202025A0007 was instituted against the applicant on 07.04.2025 and the
applicant was on police custody from 09.04.2025 to 25.09.2025. However, the
suspension of the applicant was extended till 30.09.2026 vide last order dated
23.06.2026. The sole issue involved in this Original application is that whether the
suspension of the applicant is continued for indefinite period without issuance of any
memorandum of charge-sheet and without any departmental proceeding.
18. The applicant was placed under deemed suspension for being in
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
custody for a period of more than 48 hours. Periodic reviews were conducted for his
continuance under suspension. The recommendations of the Suspension Review
Committees did not favour his reinstatement due to which he is still under
suspension. There cannot be any dispute regarding the power or jurisdiction of the
Government for continuing the applicant under suspension pending criminal trial.
There is no doubt that the allegations made against the applicant are serious in
nature. However, the point is whether the continued suspension of the applicant for
a prolonged period is justified.
19. It is well settled that even though suspension is not specified under
Rule 11 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 as a
punishment, an order of suspension affects a government servant injuriously in case
departmental inquiry is not concluded within a reasonable time. In that sense, the
continued suspension in a pending departmental inquiry becomes punitive in nature
and as such if any employee is kept under suspension for unreasonably long period,
the same may be unjustified.
20. The applicant has been under suspension for more than one year.
Admittedly, the applicant is on bail and there is no complaint that he indulged in
tampering with the evidence in criminal trial. Even now the respondents have no
case that there is any specific instance of any attempt by the applicant to tamper
with evidence. In the minutes of the Suspension Review Committee meeting held on
23.06.2026, no reasons have been assigned for extension of suspension period and
only ground has been taken that the matter is sub-judice before the Court and as
such, revocation of suspension of applicant does not appear to be proper at this

O.A. No.408/2026
stage. No departmental charge-sheet has yet been served upon the applicant. Thus,
despite the passage of considerable time, no departmental proceeding has been
initiated against the applicant by issuance of a memorandum of charges. The
suspension has nevertheless been continued on the broad ground of pendency of
the criminal case.
21. The prolonged suspension even in matters of corruption like the
present one, by itself, constitute a grave prejudice to the right of the citizens to have
speedy trial and justice. Such prolonged suspension would by itself casts stigma on
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
the delinquent concerned and the stigma would prolong as long as
the suspension order operates without any finality to the allegation being enquired
into against the delinquent concerned. Such delay in judicial proceedings casts a
shadow on the Government servants' character and integrity on one hand and on
the other, the subsistence allowance which is required under law to be paid to the
suspended employee would be a loss to the public exchequer, as the suspended
Government servants draw their subsistence allowance without any corresponding
duty to work and earn their livelihood .
22. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Allahabad High Court in
Angad Singh Vs. State of UP & Ors. (supra), wherein it has been held as under:-
3. The order of suspension pending in a contemplated inquiry by
itself is not a punishment but in case it is prolonged without initiation or
completion of inquiry, it may become punitive with the passage of time.
Whether such a prolonged suspension can be held valid and justified and
whether the respondents can be allowed to keep an employee under
suspension for an indefinite period is the moot question need to be
answered in this case. The answer is an emphatic no.
4.This question has already been answered by this Court in Smt. Anshu
Bharti Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2009(1) AWC 691 and in paras 9, 10,
11, 12 and 13 this Court has observed as under:
"9. . . . . . The prolonged suspension of the petitioner is clearly unjust
and unwarranted. The question deals with the prolonged agony and
mental torture of a suspended employee where inquiry either has not
commenced or proceed with snail pace. Though suspension in a
contemplated or pending inquiry is not a punishment but this is a
different angle of the matter, which is equally important and needs
careful consideration. A suspension during contemplation of
departmental inquiry or pendency thereof by itself is not a punishment if
resorted to by the competent authority to enquire into the allegations
levelled against the employee giving him an opportunity of participation
to find out whether the allegations are correct or not with due diligence
and within a reasonable time. In case, allegations are not found correct,
the employee is reinstated without any loss towards salary, etc., and in
case the charges are proved, the disciplinary authority passes such
order as provided under law. However, keeping an employee under

O.A. No.408/2026
suspension, either without holding any enquiry, or in a prolonged
enquiry is unreasonable. It is neither just nor in larger public interest. A
prolonged suspension by itself is penal. Similarly an order of
suspension at the initial stage may be valid fulfilling all the requirements
of law but may become penal or unlawful with the passage of time, if
the disciplinary inquiry is unreasonably prolonged or no inquiry is
initiated at all without there being any fault or obstruction on the part of
the delinquent employee. No person can be kept under suspension for
indefinite period since during the period of suspension he is not paid full
salary. He is also denied the enjoyment of status and therefore
admittedly it has some adverse effect in respect of his status, life style
and reputation in society. A person under suspension is looked with
suspicion in the society by the persons with whom he meets in his
normal discharge of function.

10. A Division Bench of this Court in Gajendra Singh Vs. High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad 2004 (3) UPLBEC 2934 observed as under :
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA

"We need not forget that when a Government officer is placed under
suspension, he is looked with suspicious eyes not only by his
collogues and friends but by public at large too."
11. Disapproving unreasonable prolonged suspension, the Apex Court
in Public Service Tribunal Bar Association Vs. State of U.P. & others
2003 (1) UPLBEC 780 (SC) observed as under :

"If a suspension continues for indefinite period or the order of
suspension passed is malafide, then it would be open to the
employee to challenge the same by approaching the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution........................(Para 26)

12. The statutory power conferred upon the disciplinary authority to
keep an employee under suspension during contemplated or pending
disciplinary enquiry cannot thus be interpreted in a manner so as to
confer an arbitrary, unguided an absolute power to keep an employee
under suspension without enquiry for unlimited period or by prolonging
enquiry unreasonably, particularly when the delinquent employee is not
responsible for such delay. Therefore, I am clearly of the opinion that a
suspension, if prolonged unreasonably without holding any enquiry or
by prolonging the enquiry itself, is penal in nature and cannot be
sustained.
13. The view I have taken is supported from another Judgment of this
Court in Ayodhya Rai & others Vs. State of U.P. & others 2006 (3) ESC
1755."

5.Further, a perusal of the order of suspension impugned in this writ
petition nowhere shows that an enquiry is in contemplation or pending
warranting suspension of the petitioner in the present case. The question
whether such an order of suspension would be valid, came up for
consideration before a Division Bench in Meera Tiwari (Smt.) Vs. Chief
Medical Officer & others 2001 (3) UPLBEC 2057 wherein it was held as
under :

"3. From the said rule it appears that a Government Servant against
whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be
placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry. The
impugned order of suspension does not refer to any contemplated
inquiry or the fact that any inquiry is pending.
4. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the order of
suspension is against the provisions of Rule 4 of the U.P. Government
Servant (Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1999 and the same cannot be
sustained.........."

O.A. No.408/2026

6.A similar dispute came up for consideration before another Division
Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 180 of 2007 Hari Shanker Misra
Vs. State of U.P. & others decided on 27.2.2007 in which, following the
judgment in Meera Tiwari (supra), the suspension order was set aside
since it was nowhere mentioned therein that the order of suspension was
passed either in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings or pendency
thereof. The same view has also been adopted by another Division Bench
(in which I was also a member) in Radhey Shyam Srivastava Vs. State of
U.P. & others 2008 (1) ADJ 466.

7.In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order of suspension
dated 7.9.2009 (Annexure 1 to writ petition) passed by respondent no. 2 is
hereby quashed.

8.This order, however, shall not preclude the respondents to initiate the
departmental proceeding, if any, pending or contemplated, against the
petitioner.

PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
23. Further, in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India [ supra ]
and it has been held by the Apex Court as under :-
21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should
not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of
charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if
the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet 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 person concerned 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. We
think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognised principle
of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve
the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognise that the
previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings
on the grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their duration. However,
the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been
discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of
justice. 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.

24. The aforesaid quoted para of judgment of Apex Court in case of Ajay
Kumar Chadhary (supra) is clear that suspension, particularly where a criminal or
departmental proceeding is contemplated or pending, cannot be allowed to continue
for an unduly long period and that the competent authority must periodically examine
whether its continuation is justified. The principle laid down therein is intended to
balance the interest of the administration with the right of an employee not to suffer
the serious civil consequences of prolonged suspension without expeditious
progress in the proceeding.

O.A. No.408/2026
25. In the case on hand, the applicant has remained under suspension
since 09.04.2025 and was released on bail on 25.09.2025, whereas the criminal
charge-sheet has already been filed on 30.05.2025. Despite passage of
considerable time, no departmental charge-sheet has admittedly been served upon
the applicant. Merely because the criminal trial is pending, which may take
considerable time for its conclusion, the applicant cannot be kept under suspension
indefinitely. Though the allegations against the applicant are undoubtedly serious in
nature, seriousness of the allegations by itself cannot justify prolonged suspension,
PUNIT KUMAR
as suspension is not a punishment and the guilt of the applicant is yet to be
MISHRA
determined by the competent criminal court.
26 The respondents have relied upon the recommendations of the
Suspension Review Committee and submitted that the suspension was extended
after due consideration of the matter. However, mere periodical review of
suspension, as a procedural requirement under the Rules, does not by itself justify
its continued operation. The reasons recorded must disclose objective consideration
and specific circumstances necessitating further suspension.
27. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, particularly the
prolonged period of suspension, the applicant's release on bail, filing of the criminal
charge-sheet, and the admitted fact that no departmental charge-sheet has yet been
served upon him, we are of the considered view that the respondents have failed to
demonstrate any compelling circumstance warranting further continuation of the
suspension.
28. Accordingly, the extension of suspension orders dated 29.12.2025
23.06.2026, so far as they extended/continued the suspension of the applicant only,
are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the
applicant in service forthwith and permit him to resume his duties on an appropriate
post, without prejudice to the pending criminal proceedings with all consequential
benefits. It is clarified that the reinstatement shall have no bearing on the criminal
case and the respondents shall remain at liberty to initiate departmental proceedings
against the applicant, if otherwise permissible in law, strictly in accordance with the
applicable rules.

O.A. No.408/2026
29. The aforesaid exercise, including reinstatement of the applicant, shall
be completed preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order.
30. Resultantly, instant O.A. stands allowed .
31. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
32. No order as to costs.

PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
(Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial)

PM/