Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr Rohit Bhagat, Ms. Anum Hussain, Ms. Yamini Singh, Mr. Pragyesh v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr Rohit Bhagat, Ms. Anum Hussain, Ms. Yamini Singh, Mr. Pragyesh Pratap Singh, Ms. Aprajita, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Ms. Ramanpreet Kaur, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ranjeev Khatana, SPC with Mr. Ram Niwas, BRO and Mr. Naveen Bharadwaj, GREF, BRO Mr. Rajat Rajoria Singh, GP Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11448/2025 & W.P.(C) 11477/2025 Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.09.2025 15:06:04 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA % JUDGMENT (ORAL)

09.09.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are disposing of these writ petitions on a very limited ground. The facts are identical. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the facts in WP (C) 11448/2025.

2. By order dated 28 February 2025, the petitioner was placed under suspension under Rule 10(1)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 19651 on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him.

3. 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.

4. It is also trite in law that an extension which is on grounds which are legally unsustainable would have to be set aside and would result in extinguishing of the order of suspension on that day.

5. The very first extension of the petitioners order of suspension Signature Not Verified 1 “CCS(CCA) Rules” hereinafter W.P.(C) 11448/2025 & W.P.(C) 11477/2025 Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.09.2025 15:06:04 which was on 27 May 2025, read thus: “1 Whereas, a disciplinary proceedings against Shri Manoj Kumar M, JE (Civ) (GS-184943W) of HQ GE (P) Yojak is contemplated for Misconduct committed while posted with 80 RCC/755 BRTF under Project Swastik. 2 Whereas, an Order placing Shri Manoj Kumar M, JE (Civ) (GS-184943W) under suspension wef 28 Feb 2025 until further orders was issued in exercise of powers conferred by sub rule 1 (a) of Rule 10 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 vide DGBR Order No.17008/DGBR/1690/03/E1E dated 28 Feb 2025. The suspension period of 90 days will expire on 28 May 2025. 3 Now, therefore, the Competent Authority in exercise of the powers conferred by sub rule (6) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, hereby directs to continue the suspension of the said Shri Manoj Kumar M, JE (Civ) (G8-184943W) for a further period of 90 days wef 29 May 2025 to 26 Aug 2025 as disciplinary action is pending against Shri Manoj Kumar M, JE (Civ) (GS-184943W). Now, therefore, the Competent Authority in exercise of 4 powers conferred by FR 53 hereby permits the said Shri Manoi Kumar M, JE (CI) (GS-184943W) to continue to claim/draw subsistence allowance @50% of pay during this suspension period. 5 The amount of subsistence allowance shall be regulated in terms of provisions contained in sub rule (ii) (a) of Rule (1) of FR 53, subject to the condition that he has not been engaged in any employment, business, profession or vocation during the period to which the claim relates, as contained in Government of India's Order No. 3 (b) below ibid Rule. 6 It is further ordered that during the period, this order enforces that the Headquarters of Shri Manoj Kumar M, JE (Civ) (GS-184943W) of HQ CE (P) Yojak shall be HQ CE (P) Yojak and the said Shri Manoj Kumar M, JE (Civ) (GS-184943W) shall not leave the said Headquarters without obtaining the prior permission of the undersigned.” (Emphasis supplied)

6. This was followed by a further order of suspension on 22 August 2025 which was identical in terms. Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11448/2025 & W.P.(C) 11477/2025 Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.09.2025 15:06:04

7. Thus, the orders of 27 May 2025 and 22 August 2025 extended the petitioner’s suspension for the second period of 90 days and the third period of 90 days on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. It is also an admitted position that, till date, no charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner.

8. Mr. Haseeb, learned CGSC submits that the issuance of charge- sheet is imminent and is presently seeking approval of the CVC.

9. Be that as it may, it is settled in law that disciplinary proceedings commence only with issuance of charge-sheet. The following passage from Union of India v Anil Kumar Sarkar2 makes this clear: In Coal India Ltd. v Saroj Kumar Mishra3 this Court, in “19. AIR para 22, has held that: A departmental proceeding is ordinarily said to be “18. initiated only when a charge-sheet is issued.” In Coal India Ltd. v Ananta Saha4 this Court held as

20. under: “27. There can be no quarrel with the settled legal proposition that the disciplinary proceedings commence only when a charge-sheet is issued to the delinquent employee.5”

21. We also the disciplinary proceedings commence only when a charge-sheet is issued. Departmental proceeding is normally said to be initiated only when a charge- reiterate