Suspension Can't Be Extended On Ground Of Pending Disciplinary Proceedings Unless Charge-Sheet Is Issued: Delhi HC

Background Facts

The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated February 28, 2025 under Rule 10(1)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. He was suspended on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him for misconduct committed while posted with 80 RCC/755 BRTF under Project Swastik. The suspension was initially for 90 days.

Thereafter, the suspension of the petitioner was extended for a further period of 90 days, i.e., from May 29, 2025 to August 26, 2025 by order dated May 27, 2025. The ground mentioned in the extension order was that disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner. Again a similar order was passed on August 22, 2025, by which the suspension was extended for another 90 days. This order also recorded the ground that disciplinary proceedings were pending. Also till date no charge-sheet had been issued against the petitioner.

Aggrieved by the continuation of suspension, the petitioner filed the writ petition.

It was submitted by the petitioner that the order of suspension dated February 28, 2025 was only on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated. However, the subsequent extension orders dated May 27, 2025 and August 22, 2025 recorded that disciplinary proceedings were pending, whereas in fact no charge-sheet had been issued against the petitioner till date.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondents that the petitioner had been placed under suspension by order dated February 28, 2025, in terms of Rule 10(1)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, as disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him. It was also argued by the respondents that issuance of charge-sheet was imminent and the proposal was awaiting approval of the CVC. The respondents further contended that the petitioner was suspended because disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against them. The extension of the suspension was not based on the proceedings being contemplated, but on the fact that they were pending

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules requires every order of suspension to be reviewed every 90 days, upto the maximum period of 270 days. It was further observed that the petitioner was suspended on February 28, 2025, on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated. However, the subsequent extension orders dated May 27, 2025, and August 22, 2025, recorded that the disciplinary proceedings were pending.

It was observed by the court that as per Rule 14(3) and 14(4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the disciplinary proceedings commence only when a charge-sheet is issued. Further reliance was placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Anil Kumar Sarkar, Coal India Ltd. v. Saroj Kumar Mishra, and Coal India Ltd. v. Ananta Saha, wherein it was held that a departmental proceeding is initiated only upon issuance of a charge-sheet. Therefore, it was held by the court that as no charge-sheet had been issued therefore, the ground mentioned in the extension orders was factually incorrect.

It was observed by the court that the ground on which the suspension was extended on the second and third period of 90 days was erroneous, as there were no disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner at that point of time. It was further observed by the court that the respondent's contention that the extension of suspension was due to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings was incorrect.

It was also noted by the Court that the legality of an executive action must be tested on the reasons contained in the order itself. The judgments in Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner were relied upon by the court wherein it was held that a statutory order must be judged solely on the reasons stated at the time it is made and cannot be later validated by new or additional reasons. Further public orders must be interpreted objectively based on their language, not on subsequent explanations of intent.

It was held by the court that the extension orders dated May 27, 2025, and August 22, 2025, were on a plainly factually erroneous ground and liable to be set aside. Consequently, the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated in service. Further it was held by the court that the respondents have right to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law, including passing an order of suspension, if deemed appropriate.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was allowed.

Case Name : Manoj Kumar M. Through A.R Ashish Dubey vs Union Of India And Ors

Case No. : W.P.(C) 11448/2025

Counsel for the Petitioner : T. Singhdev, Rohit Bhagat, Anum Hussain, Yamini Singh, Pragyesh Pratap Singh, Aprajita, Abhijit Chakravarty, Ramanpreet Kaur, Advs.

Counsel for the Respondents : Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC with Anis, GP, Naveen Bhardwaj, JD (Admn), Sub. Ram Niwas and UDC Rameshwar Lal