Suspension is Deemed Revoked by Operation of Law if No Charge Sheet Issues Within Six Months

The Petitioner, a Senior Assistant at the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB), was placed under suspension on 19-12-2022 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings regarding alleged financial irregularities in land compensation payments

Despite the passage of over two years, no departmental charge sheet was issued

The Petitioner submitted a representation for revocation of suspension in June 2023, citing Rule 10(5)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, but received no response

After the Petitioner filed this Writ Petition on 06-02-2025, the Board finally issued a charge sheet in April 2025

The Respondents argued that the suspension remained valid due to a pending CID criminal investigation and the risk of the Petitioner tampering with documents

1. Whether the Petitioner's suspension is deemed to have been revoked by operation of law under Rule 10(5)(b) of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957, due to the failure to commence an inquiry within six months

2. Whether the subsequent issuance of a charge sheet after nearly three years can revive a suspension that has already lapsed under the statutory "deeming clause"

Rule 10(5)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (as amended in 2020), which mandates that if a departmental inquiry is not commenced or a charge sheet is not filed within six months of suspension, and no extension is ordered, the suspension is "deemed to have been revoked"

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, which established that suspension must be of short duration and loses currency if a charge sheet is not served within three months

Union of India v. Dipak Mali, which held that a subsequent review cannot revive a suspension that has already become invalid by efflux of time

State of Madhya Pradesh v. L.P. Tiwari, noting that authorities cannot sit over suspension orders without prompt follow-up action

The Court noted that the 2020 amendment to Rule 10(5)(b) introduced a "deeming clause" intended to prevent indefinite suspension

The Petitioner’s six-month period ended on 18-06-2023; since no charge sheet was issued or extension order passed by the Competent Authority within that timeframe, the suspension was revoked by operation of law on that date

The Court observed that the Board only issued a charge sheet in 2025 after judicial intervention, which it characterized as a "troubling disregard to the rule of law"

The Court rejected the argument that a pending criminal case justifies continued suspension in the absence of a departmental inquiry, holding that the statutory timeline in the CCA Rules is independent and binding

Following the precedent in Dipak Mali, the Court concluded that the Board could not retroactively validate a lapsed suspension through delayed action

The Court held that the suspension was deemed revoked as of 18-06-2023, the date the six-month period expired

The Respondents were directed to provide the Petitioner with a new posting and grant all consequential service benefits effective from the date of the deemed revocation