Extension of suspension beyond ninety days without mandatory review is invalid and non-est in law.

The applicant, a Senior Public Prosecutor in the CBI, was arrested on April 10, 2025, in a criminal case and subsequently released on bail on April 28, 2025

On May 22, 2025, the respondents placed the applicant under deemed suspension effective from the date of arrest under Rule 10(2)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

Although the initial 90-day period of suspension expired on July 8, 2025, the respondents only reviewed and extended the suspension via an impugned order dated August 11, 2025

The respondents contended that the 90-day review period should be calculated from May 16, 2025—the date they received official intimation of the applicant’s release on bail—rather than the date of arrest or release

Additionally, the respondents moved the applicant’s headquarters from Delhi to Mumbai during the suspension

1. Whether the extension of suspension via the order dated August 11, 2025, is legally sustainable under Rule 10(6) and 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, given it was issued after the expiry of 90 days from the initial suspension

2. Whether the proviso to Rule 10(7), which calculates the 90-day period from the date of intimation of release, applies when a government servant is released from custody before the expiry of the initial 90-day suspension period

The court primarily applied Rule 10(6) and 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which mandate that a suspension order must be reviewed by the competent authority before the expiry of 90 days

It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Dipak Mali (2010) 2 SCC 222, which established that suspension automatically invalidates if not reviewed within the prescribed period

It further applied the interpretation from Union of India v. Akil Ahmad (2025:DHC:1901-DB) and Union of India v. Gali Sreedhar (W.P. (C) No. 19586/2025), holding that the extension of the 90-day commencement date (based on the "date of intimation of release") is only applicable if the employee remains in detention beyond the initial 90 days

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument that the 90-day period commenced from the date of "intimation" of the applicant's release.

Following the precedent in Akil Ahmad, the Tribunal reasoned that the waiver of the 90-day review deadline (and the shifting of the commencement date to the date of release/intimation) applies exclusively to cases where the official is still under detention when the 90-day period expires.

In the present case, the applicant was released on April 28, 2025, well before the 90-day expiry on July 8, 2025

Consequently, the respondents were legally obligated to review and extend the suspension before July 8, 2025

Since the impugned review order was passed on August 11, 2025—well beyond the statutory limit—the continued suspension was deemed void ab initio

It quashed the impugned order dated August 11, 2025, and directed the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service effective from July 9, 2025 (the date following the expiry of the initial 90 days)

The applicant was granted all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary and continuity of service

The interim order staying the change of headquarters was made absolute, with a direction to comply within four weeks