Suspension Extension Requires Reconsideration Post-Discharge from Criminal Proceedings.

The applicant, Narinder Singh, an Ad-hoc DANICS officer, challenged his suspension order dated 10.08.2022 and subsequent extension orders until 19.01.2026.

He was suspended under Rule 10(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 due to contemplated disciplinary proceedings.

Eight other officers were suspended on identical allegations, but their suspensions were not continued beyond 19.01.2026.

One ground for the applicant's continued suspension was that prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, had been granted against him, and cognizance was taken by the Special Judge.

However, the eight other officers were not arrayed in the CBI charge-sheet.

Subsequently, on 27.02.2026, the Special Judge (PC ACT) (CBI)-23,(MPs/ MLAs Cases) Rouse Avenue Court, discharged the accused, including the applicant, in CBI Case No. 56/2022.

The CBI has challenged this discharge order in the Delhi High Court.

Whether the continued suspension of the applicant is justified given the discharge in the CBI case and the non-continuation of suspension for similarly situated co-accused.

Whether the respondents/competent authority/disciplinary authority must reconsider the suspension given the discharge order.

The court's decision was primarily guided by the principles of administrative law concerning suspension of government employees under Rule 10(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, specifically the requirement for periodic review and reconsideration of suspension orders, especially when the grounds for suspension, such as pending prosecution, are no longer valid.

The implied rule also suggests that differential treatment of similarly situated individuals must have a rational basis.

The court noted that while the applicant's suspension was continually extended, eight other officers suspended on identical allegations were not kept under suspension beyond 19.01.2026.

The key distinction for the applicant's continued suspension was the grant of prosecution sanction and cognizance by the Special Judge.

However, the court found that the applicant had been discharged from the CBI case on 27.02.2026.

Despite the CBI challenging this discharge in the High Court, the court emphasized that, as of the date of the order, there was "no prosecution pending against him" and he stood discharged.

This rendered the applicant's situation identical to the eight previously suspended officers and accused No. 1 in the criminal proceedings.

Given this material change in circumstances, the justification for the applicant's continued suspension had been significantly undermined.

The court did not explicitly address the applicant's argument regarding the charge-sheet in departmental proceedings being issued after 270 days, but focused on the impact of the criminal discharge.

The issue of back wages was to be considered by the disciplinary authority at the appropriate stage.

The O.A. was disposed of with these directions.