Facts
The respondent, a government servant, was arrested by the CBI on 10 April 2025 and released on bail on 28 April 2025
Source reference: p.2, para. 5By an order dated 22 May 2025, the petitioners placed the respondent under suspension effective retrospectively from the date of detention (10 April 2025) pursuant to Rule 10(2)(a) of the CCS(CCA) Rules
Source reference: p.2, para. 5-6Under Rule 10(6), a review of suspension must occur within 90 days, a period which expired on 8 July 2025
Source reference: p.2, para. 7However, the petitioners did not extend the suspension until 11 August 2025
Source reference: p.2-3, para. 7The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) held that the suspension lapsed on 8 July 2025 by operation of law
Source reference: p.2, para. 2The Union of India challenged this decision
Source reference: p.2, para. 3Issues
1. Whether the 90-day period for reviewing a suspension under Rule 10(6) of the CCS(CCA) Rules should be reckoned from the date of the formal suspension order or the effective date of deemed suspension
Source reference: p.3-4, para. 102. Whether the proviso to Rule 10(7) applies to extend the review period when the employee is no longer in custody at the time the 90-day period expires
Source reference: p.3, para. 9Law Applied
Rule 10(2)(a) mandates "deemed suspension" from the date of detention if it exceeds 48 hours
Source reference: p.2, para. 6Rule 10(6) requires a review of such suspension before the expiry of 90 days from the "effective date of suspension"
Source reference: p.2, para. 7Rule 10(7) dictates that a suspension becomes invalid if not extended after review before the expiry of said 90 days
Source reference: p.3, para. 8The proviso to Rule 10(7) waives the 90-day review requirement only if the government servant "continues to be under detention" at the completion of the 90-day period
Source reference: p.3, para. 9Reasoning
The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument that the 90-day period should run from the formal order date (22 May 2025), holding that Rule 10(6) unequivocally specifies the "effective date of suspension" as the starting point, which was 10 April 2025
Source reference: p.4, para. 10The Court observed that Rule 10(2)(a) operates ipso facto, meaning the formal order issued later did not alter the statutory timeline for review
Source reference: p.4, para. 12Furthermore, the Court found the proviso to Rule 10(7) inapplicable because the respondent was released on bail on 28 April 2025; thus, he was not in detention when the 90-day window closed on 8 July 2025
Source reference: p.3, para. 9Consequently, since no review order was passed before 8 July 2025, the suspension lapsed by operation of law
Source reference: p.4, para. 14Holding
The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the respondent's suspension ended on 8 July 2025
The Court affirmed the direction for reinstatement and continuity of service but modified the relief regarding monetary benefits: while the respondent is entitled to fixation of pay as if he remained in service, he is not entitled to any arrears of pay for the suspension period. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs
Source reference: p.5, para. 16-17Original Court PDF
Union Of India And AnothervsAnil Kumar Tanwar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in