Suspension cannot continue after culmination of the disciplinary proceedings that formed the basis of the suspension order.

The Respondent, a Deputy Commissioner of Customs, was placed under suspension on June 17, 2017, in contemplation of departmental proceedings

The suspension was extended periodically

The Respondent challenged the suspension before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), arguing it could not exceed 90 days without a charge sheet per Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. UOI. The CAT allowed the OA on April 2, 2018, quashing the suspension

While the Union of India (UOI) challenged this in the High Court, the underlying disciplinary proceedings culminated in a final penalty order dated February 28, 2022

Additionally, criminal investigations by the CBI and DRI for smuggling and impersonation were disclosed by the UOI during pendency

The Court applied Rule 10(1)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, regarding the power to suspend in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings

It refined the application of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. UOI by citing Pramod Kumar v. UOI, holding there is no absolute right to extinguish suspension if it is periodically reviewed under Rule 10(6)

Crucially, it relied on the administrative law principle established in Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, which dictates that an order must stand or fall based on the reasons recorded within it and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in an affidavit

The Court observed that while the CAT’s reliance on Ajay Kumar Choudhary was technically flawed because the suspension had been reviewed

Since the suspension order dated June 17, 2017, was specifically issued because disciplinary proceedings were "contemplated," and those proceedings concluded with a penalty order on February 28, 2022, the original "basis" for suspension vanished

The Court rejected the UOI's attempt to justify the suspension using pending CBI/DRI criminal cases, holding that per the Mohinder Singh Gill doctrine, the legality of the suspension must be judged solely on the grounds stated in the 2017 order (contemplated departmental action) rather than external criminal investigations

The Court dismissed the writ petition and sustained the CAT's order quashing the suspension, though for different reasons... the Court clarified that the authorities are at liberty to pass a fresh suspension order based on the pending criminal cases or other grounds if advised