Suspension stands revoked after ninety days if extension violates procedural mandates under CCS (CCA) Rules.

The applicant, a Postal Assistant under suspension, challenged the non-regularization of his initial suspension period

He was suspended in connection with a transaction involving the opening of irregular pass-books, a matter involving another employee, Sri Sheo Balak Pandit

The applicant claimed parity with Sri Pandit, whose suspension extension was declared invalid by the Tribunal in OA No. 303/2014—a decision later affirmed by the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 11518/2016

Although the applicant’s suspension was eventually revoked on August 3, 2018, the respondents had not yet regularized the service period following the first 90 days of his initial suspension

Whether the extension of the applicant's suspension was invalid due to the violation of prescribed procedural rules

Whether the applicant is entitled to the regularization of his service and the same relief granted to a similarly situated employee in OA No. 303/2014

The Tribunal primarily applied Rules 10(6) and 10(7) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, which mandate specific procedures and timelines for the review and extension of suspension

judicial precedent established in Sheo Balak Pandit v. Union of India (OA No. 303/2014) and affirmed by the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 11518/2016, which established that failure to follow these statutory procedures renders the continuation of suspension invalid after the initial 90-day period

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s case was "exactly identical" to that of Sri Sheo Balak Pandit, as both were implicated in the same transaction

Applying the reasoning from OA No. 303/2014, the Tribunal found that the respondents' extension of suspension failed the test of scrutiny under Rules 10(6) and 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules

Since the respondents could not produce any evidence or superior court orders to distinguish the present case or contradict the High Court’s affirmation of the previous precedent, the Tribunal held that the procedural lapse in extending the suspension necessitated its revocation by operation of law after the first 90 days

The respondents were directed to comply with the order and take consequential action for the regularization of the applicant's service within three months

the respondents are not restrained from continuing with the disciplinary action initiated against the applicant for the alleged irregularities