Suspension cannot be mechanically extended without a charge-sheet or cogent, recorded reasons.

The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer in the Tripura Public Works Department, was placed under suspension on 8 January 2025 under Rule 10(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, on the ground that a vigilance enquiry was contemplated.

The suspension was extended from time to time, most recently by an order dated 7 July 2026 for a further 90 days from 8 July 2026, on the ground that the vigilance report was awaited.

No charge-sheet had been served and departmental proceedings had not commenced.

The petitioner challenged the latest extension and sought reinstatement and enhanced subsistence allowance.

The State stated that 75% subsistence allowance had been paid from 8 April 2025.

1. Whether the suspension extension dated 7 July 2026 was legally sustainable when no charge-sheet had been served or departmental proceeding commenced, and the stated reason was that the vigilance report remained pending.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement following the setting aside of that extension.

Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 requires suspension to be reviewed by the competent authority, on the recommendation of a Review Committee, before expiry of 90 days; an extension cannot exceed 180 days at a time.

Rule 10(7) provides that a suspension order is not valid after 90 days unless extended following review before that period expires.

In Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, the Supreme Court held that suspension should not ordinarily continue beyond three months if no memorandum of charges or charge-sheet has been served; where charges are served, any extension must be supported by a reasoned order.

The Court found that the petitioner’s suspension had been repeatedly extended because the vigilance report was awaited, although no charge-sheet had been served and departmental proceedings had not begun.

The State offered no material explaining the delay in the vigilance report.

Applying Ajay Kumar Choudhary, the Court held that the latest extension lacked justified grounds and was made mechanically, without proper application of mind; it therefore could not be sustained.

It directed the Department to reinstate the petitioner at the earliest and left it at liberty to take immediate steps to complete the departmental proceeding.

The Court recorded that 75% subsistence allowance had already been paid; it did not grant a separate direction concerning enhancement of that allowance.