Suspension lapses after 90 days without timely review; subsequent extension cannot revive it.

The petitioners in the three connected writ petitions had been deployed in different capacities to conduct the 10+2 examination at PM Shri GSSS, Jawali.

On 13 March 2026, an incident of mass copying allegedly occurred at the examination centre.

The petitioners were independently placed under suspension on the same date pending disciplinary proceedings, on the basis of prima facie video evidence allegedly showing teachers verbally indicating or narrating answers to students during the multiple-choice examination.

The petitioners challenged the suspension orders on the ground that they were not reviewed within 90 days, as required under Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.

During the proceedings, the State disclosed that the review process commenced on 6 June 2026, but the orders extending the suspension were issued only on 12 June 2026, i.e., on the 91st day.

Whether suspension orders issued under Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules become invalid if they are not reviewed and extended within 90 days of their issuance?

Whether a review and extension of suspension undertaken on the 91st day can retrospectively revive suspension orders that had become invalid upon expiry of the 90-day period?

The Court applied Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, under which an order of suspension cannot remain valid beyond 90 days unless it is extended after review for a further period.

Relying on Union of India v. Dipak Mali, (2010) 2 SCC 222, the Court held that review, modification, revocation, or extension of suspension must occur before expiry of the initial 90-day period; a subsequent review or extension cannot revive an order that has already become invalid.

The Court also relied on Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, which emphasised that suspension should not continue indefinitely and that, where a charge-sheet is not served within the prescribed period, continuation of suspension requires a reasoned order of extension.

The suspension orders were passed on 13 March 2026, but the State’s own instructions established that the orders were reviewed and extended only on 12 June 2026, the 91st day.

The Court therefore found that the mandatory 90-day requirement under Rule 10 had not been complied with.

Applying Dipak Mali, it held that the suspension orders became invalid automatically upon expiry of 90 days and that the belated review and extension could not retrospectively validate them.

Consequently, the petitioners’ continued suspension after the expiry of the 90-day period was held to be illegal.

The suspension orders dated 13 March 2026 were declared invalid after expiry of 90 days from their issuance.

The petitioners were directed to be treated as being on duty after expiry of the 90-day period, with all consequential benefits.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.