Prolonged suspension without departmental chargesheet cannot continue solely because criminal proceedings remain pending.

The applicant, an Inspector in the Central Goods and Services Tax Department, was arrested by the CBI on 9 April 2025 in connection with RC No. 1202025A0007, registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and related provisions.

Since he remained in custody for more than 48 hours, he was placed under deemed suspension with effect from 9 April 2025 under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

A criminal charge-sheet was filed on 30 May 2025, and the applicant was granted bail by the Allahabad High Court on 17 September 2025 and released on 25 September 2025.

The applicant’s suspension was extended by orders dated 29 December 2025 and 23 June 2026, the latter extending it up to 30 September 2026.

Although the suspension was periodically reviewed and subsistence allowance was paid, no departmental charge-sheet or memorandum of charges had been served upon the applicant.

The applicant therefore sought quashing of the suspension-extension orders and reinstatement with consequential benefits.

Whether the applicant’s continued suspension, despite his release on bail and the filing of the criminal charge-sheet, was justified merely because the criminal trial remained pending?

Whether the extension orders dated 29 December 2025 and 23 June 2026 were legally sustainable in the absence of a departmental charge-sheet and specific reasons demonstrating the necessity of continued suspension?

Whether the applicant was entitled to reinstatement without prejudice to the pending criminal proceedings?

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, particularly the provisions concerning deemed suspension and periodic review under Rules 10(6) and 10(7).

It reaffirmed that suspension is not ordinarily a punishment, but prolonged suspension without initiation or reasonable progress of disciplinary proceedings may acquire a punitive character and become unjustified.

Relying principally on Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, the Tribunal applied the rule that suspension should ordinarily not continue beyond three months unless the charge-sheet is served; where the charge-sheet is served, any extension must be supported by a reasoned order.

It also relied on Angad Singh v. State of U.P., and the principles concerning the impermissibility of indefinite or unreasonably prolonged suspension in Anshu Bharti v. State of U.P., Public Service Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U.P., and related authorities.

The Tribunal accepted that the respondents possessed the power to continue the applicant’s suspension during the pendency of the criminal trial and that the corruption allegations were serious.

However, seriousness of the allegations and periodic review alone could not justify indefinite suspension.

The applicant had remained suspended for more than one year, had been released on bail, and there was no allegation or specific instance of witness or evidence tampering.

The criminal charge-sheet had already been filed, yet no departmental charge-sheet had been served.

The Suspension Review Committee’s order dated 23 June 2026 merely recorded that the criminal matter was sub judice and did not disclose objective or specific circumstances requiring continued suspension.

Applying Ajay Kumar Choudhary, the Tribunal held that procedural review under Rule 10 did not, by itself, validate continuation of suspension; the reasons had to demonstrate a compelling administrative necessity.

Since the respondents failed to establish such circumstances, continuation of suspension was held to be unjustified.

The suspension-extension orders dated 29 December 2025 and 23 June 2026, insofar as they continued the applicant’s suspension, were quashed and set aside.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant forthwith, permit him to resume duties on an appropriate post, and grant consequential benefits, without prejudice to the pending criminal case.

The exercise was to be completed preferably within two months from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The respondents remained at liberty to initiate departmental proceedings in accordance with law.

The Original Application was allowed, all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.