Failure to extend suspension within 90 days does not invalidate it when the charge-sheet was timely served.

The respondent, an Assistant Grade-III employee in the office of the Collector, Korba, was detained in connection with FIR No. 309/2022 for offences under Section 509(B) IPC and Section 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

He was placed under suspension by order dated 25.03.2022, with effect from 23.03.2022, on account of detention exceeding 48 hours.

A departmental charge-sheet was served on 20.04.2022, within 90 days of the commencement of suspension.

However, no order continuing or extending the suspension was passed within 90 days; such an order was issued only on 28.08.2023, more than one and a half years later.

The learned Single Judge, relying on Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India and Kishore Kumar @ K. Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, held that continuation of suspension was required to be ordered within 90 days. It consequently set aside both suspension orders and directed the respondent’s reinstatement.

The State preferred the present intra-court appeal, contending that Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 permitted continuation of suspension where the charge-sheet had been served within the prescribed period.

The Court applied Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, particularly Rule 9(2-B) and Rule 9(5-A), under which an order of suspension generally continues until modified or revoked by the competent authority, subject to the specific statutory consequences prescribed for failure to serve the charge-sheet and accompanying documents within the prescribed period.

The Court considered Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, which cautions against prolonged and indefinite suspension and states that suspension should not ordinarily continue beyond three months where the memorandum of charges or charge-sheet has not been served within that period.

It also considered Kishore Kumar @ K. Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, but held that the decision could not be read as establishing an absolute 90-day termination rule irrespective of the applicable statutory scheme.

The governing principle is that delayed continuation may warrant judicial scrutiny, but it does not, by itself, extinguish the original suspension where the charge-sheet was served within the prescribed period; nevertheless, prolonged suspension must be periodically and meaningfully reviewed.

The Division Bench distinguished between the validity of the initial suspension and the administrative decision concerning its continuation.

Since the respondent’s charge-sheet was served on 20.04.2022, within 90 days of his suspension commencing on 23.03.2022, the statutory consequence of automatic revocation applicable to non-service of the charge-sheet was not attracted.

Rule 9(5-A) did not expressly provide that every suspension automatically terminated after 90 days merely because a separate continuation order had not been passed within that period.

Accordingly, the learned Single Judge erred in treating expiry of 90 days as automatically rendering both suspension orders void.

However, the Court emphasised that Rule 9 does not confer an unfettered power to continue suspension indefinitely.

The competent authority must consider relevant factors, including the seriousness of the allegations, the stage of the disciplinary or criminal proceedings, the possibility of interference with proceedings or witnesses, the nature of the employee’s duties, and the feasibility of posting him to a non-sensitive position.

The order dated 28.08.2023 therefore could not be invalidated solely on the ground of delay, although the prolonged suspension required a fresh and meaningful review.

The order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside, and the respondent’s writ petition was dismissed.

The Court held that failure to pass an order of continuation within 90 days did not, by itself, invalidate the original suspension or the subsequent continuation order because the departmental charge-sheet had been served within the prescribed period.

Nevertheless, the competent authority was directed to undertake a fresh, objective and meaningful review of the necessity of continuing the respondent’s suspension, including consideration of revocation or posting to a suitable non-sensitive post.

No order as to costs was made.