Deemed suspension lapses automatically if not reviewed within ninety days unless the officer remains in continuous detention.

The applicant, a 2004 batch IRS officer serving as Commissioner of Income Tax, was arrested by the CBI on 10.05.2025 and subsequently released on bail on 21.06.2025

Pursuant to his arrest, he was placed under deemed suspension effective 10.05.2025 under Rule 10(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

On 12.09.2025, the respondents issued an order extending the suspension for a further 180 days

The applicant challenged this extension, contending that the initial 90-day period for review expired on 08.08.2025, rendering the subsequent extension order non-est

The respondents argued that under the proviso to Rule 10(7), the 90-day period should be calculated from the date of the applicant's release from custody (21.06.2025), making the September extension timely

1. Whether the 90-day period for reviewing a deemed suspension under Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules commences from the date of suspension or the date of release from custody when the employee is released before the expiry of the initial 90 days

2. Whether the failure to conduct a review within the statutory 90-day period results in the automatic lapse of the suspension order

The Tribunal primarily applied Rule 10(6) and Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which mandate that a suspension order must be reviewed and extended by a competent authority within 90 days of the effective date of suspension to remain valid

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Union of India v. Dipak Mali (2010), which established that a suspension becomes invalid if not reviewed within 90 days and cannot be revived retrospectively

It applied the interpretation of the proviso to Rule 10(7) as established by the Delhi High Court in Union of India v. Akil Ahmad (2024) and Union of India v. Gali Sreedhar (2025), which clarifies that the 90-day computation from the date of release applies only if the government servant remains in detention beyond the initial 90-day period

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument that the review period should commence from the date of release from jail.

It reasoned that the proviso to Rule 10(7) is a narrow exception intended only for cases where a servant remains in continuous detention beyond the 90-day mark

Since the applicant was released on 21.06.2025—well before the 90-day expiry on 08.08.2025—the respondents were under a statutory obligation to conduct the review before the latter date

The Tribunal emphasized that the "seriousness of allegations" or "pendency of investigation" cannot override the mandatory statutory requirements of Rule 10

Consequently, the suspension lapsed by operation of law on 08.08.2025, and the extension order passed on 12.09.2025 was void as there was no subsisting suspension to extend

It held that the applicant's suspension became invalid on 08.08.2025 due to the respondents' failure to conduct a timely review

The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant with all consequential service benefits, including full pay and allowances (minus subsistence allowance already paid), within four weeks

No order was made as to costs