Failure to review deemed suspension within 90 days renders subsequent continuation orders invalid.

The applicant, a DASS Grade I officer, was appointed as DASS Grade II in 2007 and promoted with effect from 1 January 2013.

While serving as Sub-Registrar, Lajpat Nagar, he was arrested on 25 February 2022 in CBI/ACB case RC No. DAI-2022-A-0009 under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The respondents placed him under deemed suspension under Rule 10(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, by order dated 1 March 2022, with effect from 25 February 2022.

He was released on bail on 1 April 2022.

On 23 May 2022, the respondents extended his suspension for 180 days on the recommendation that the circumstances leading to his suspension continued.

The suspension was thereafter periodically continued by orders dated 21 November 2022, 20 May 2023, 13 November 2023, 6 May 2024, 6 November 2024, 2 May 2025 and 31 October 2025.

The applicant challenged the continuation of his suspension, relying principally on Union of India v. Gali Sreedhar, decided by the Delhi High Court on 23 December 2025.

1. Whether the respondents could validly continue the applicant’s deemed suspension after he had been released from custody, without reviewing and extending the suspension within 90 days of the initial deemed suspension under Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965?

2. Whether the order dated 23 May 2022 and the subsequent orders continuing the suspension were legally sustainable when they effectively invoked Rule 10(2) after the applicant’s release from custody?

The Tribunal applied Rule 10(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, under which a government servant detained in custody for more than 48 hours is deemed to have been suspended; Rule 10(5)(a), under which a suspension order continues subject to Rule 10(7); and Rule 10(7), which requires review and extension of a suspension before expiry of the initial 90-day period, unless the government servant continues to remain in detention at that time.

The Tribunal relied on Union of India v. Dipak Mali, (2010) 2 SCC 222, holding that suspension becomes invalid after 90 days unless extended after review.

The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court decisions in Union of India v. Akil Ahmad, 2025:DHC:1901-DB, and Union of India v. Gali Sreedhar, which hold that the proviso to Rule 10(7) applies only where the employee remains detained on expiry of the initial 90-day period; where the employee has been released and the release is communicated, the suspension must be reviewed within 90 days of the deemed suspension.

The Tribunal distinguished Government of NCT of Delhi v. Dr. Rishi Anand, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10506, as relating to suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings rather than deemed suspension arising from detention.

The applicant’s deemed suspension commenced on 25 February 2022, while he was released on bail on 1 April 2022, before expiry of the initial 90-day period.

Consequently, the respondents could not rely on the proviso to Rule 10(7), which applies only where the employee remains in detention at the end of that period.

The review and extension order dated 23 May 2022 was therefore required to have been made within 90 days of 25 February 2022.

The Tribunal further found that the respondents’ reasoning—that the circumstances leading to suspension continued—was legally and factually insufficient because the applicant’s continued detention, which formed the basis of the deemed suspension, had ceased.

The order dated 23 May 2022 effectively amounted to a fresh invocation of Rule 10(2), which was impermissible after the applicant’s release from custody and outside the prescribed review period.

The applicant was held entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions.

The respondents were directed to comply, preferably within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.