Suspension under Rule 10(1)(a) cannot continue beyond 270 days; a subsequent charge-sheet does not revive it.

The applicant, Vedpal, a Divisional Officer, was placed under suspension under Rule 10(1)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, on 20 December 2024.

The respondents extended his suspension by orders dated 15 September 2025 and 13 March 2026.

The applicant contended that the maximum permissible period of 270 days expired on 15 September 2025 and that his suspension could not legally continue thereafter.

Although a charge-sheet was issued subsequently on 12 November 2025, the respondents argued that the issuance of the charge-sheet validated the continuation of suspension and that the delay was attributable to the records being with the CBI; they also relied on the gravity of the charges.

The applicant therefore sought quashing of the continuation of suspension and reinstatement with consequential benefits.

Whether the applicant’s suspension under Rule 10(1)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, could continue beyond 270 days from the date of the suspension order?

Whether the charge-sheet issued after expiry of the 270-day period could retrospectively justify or validate the continuation of suspension?

Whether the applicant was entitled to reinstatement with consequential service benefits from the date on which the permissible suspension period expired?

The Tribunal applied Rule 10(1)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, under which a government servant may be placed under suspension where disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or pending.

It primarily relied on the second proviso to Rule 10(7), which provides that where no charge-sheet has been issued under the Rules, the total period of suspension, including any extended period under Rule 10(6), shall not exceed 270 days from the date of the suspension order when the employee is suspended under Rule 10(1)(a).

The governing rule, as applied by the Tribunal, is that suspension under Rule 10(1)(a) cannot continue beyond 270 days in the absence of a charge-sheet issued within that period; a charge-sheet issued after expiry of the prescribed period does not retrospectively validate the continuation of suspension.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s suspension was expressly imposed under Rule 10(1)(a), making the 270-day limitation in the second proviso to Rule 10(7) applicable.

Since the 270-day period expired on 15 September 2025, the respondents could not continue the suspension from 16 September 2025 onward.

The subsequent issuance of the charge-sheet on 12 November 2025 did not alter the legal position because it occurred after expiry of the statutory maximum period and could not retrospectively authorise the unlawful continuation of suspension.

The Tribunal clarified that the gravity of the charges and the respondents’ explanation concerning the CBI records could not override the express limitation contained in Rule 10(7).

The respondents remained free to conduct the disciplinary inquiry, but the applicant’s suspension could not continue beyond the prescribed 270 days.

The orders dated 15 September 2025 and 13 March 2026 were quashed to the extent that they extended the suspension beyond the permissible period.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant with effect from 16 September 2025 and grant all consequential benefits, including salary and other service benefits, in accordance with law, within four weeks of receiving the order.

Pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.