Union of India and Another v. Anil Kumar Tanwar

1. This writ petition assails judgment dated 18 March 2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal[1] in OA 4079/2025[2].

2. The Tribunal has, by the impugned judgment, held that the suspension of the respondent under Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules came to an end on 8 July 2025 by operation of law.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the Union of India is before us.

4. We have heard Ms. Pooja S Kalra, learned CGSC for the “the Tribunal” hereafter Anil Kumar Tanwar v. Union of India & Anr. petitioners and Dr. B.T Kaul, learned Counsel for the respondent.

5. The issue in controversy is short. The respondent was arrested on 10 April 2025 in a case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation[3]. He was released on bail on 28 April 2025. By order dated 22 May 2025, he was placed under suspension with effect from 10 April 2025 by invoking Rule 10(2)(a)4 of the CCS(CCA) Rules.

6. Rule 10(2)(a) deems a person who has been detained in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours to be deemed to be under suspension from the date of his detention. As such, though the order of suspension came to be passed on 22 May 2025, it was correctly made effective from 10 April 2025.

7. Rule 10(6)5 of the CCS(CCA) Rules provides for review of an order of suspension either made or deemed to have been made under Rule 10 before the expiry of 90 days from the effective date of suspension. In other words, the review of the suspension of the respondent was required to be undertaken on or before the expiry of 90 days from 10 April 2025. This period of 90 days, undisputedly, expired on 8 July 2025. However, the petitioners extended the suspension of the respondent for a period of 90 days on 11 August “the CBI” hereinafter (2) A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of appointing authority - (a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours; ***** (6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of ninety days from the effective date of suspension, on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time. 2025, which was beyond 8 July 2025.

8. This brought into effect Rule 10(7)6 of the CCS(CCA) Rules which provides that, if review of suspension does not take place before the expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension/deemed suspension, the suspension would no longer be in effect. The Tribunal has, therefore, held that, as the order continuing suspension beyond 90 days was passed on 11 August 2025, which was after the expiry of said period of 90 days on 8 July 2025, therefore, by operation of Rule 10(7), the period of suspension had come to an end on 8 July 2025.

9. Ms. Puja S Kalra, learned CGSC for the petitioners, has placed reliance on the proviso to Rule 10(7). However, on a careful reading, we find that the proviso has no application in the present case. The proviso applies only where the government servant continues to be under detention on the date when the period of 90 days envisaged in Rule 10(6)/10(7) expires. In the present case, the detention of the respondent came to an end on 28 April 2025. As such, the respondent was not continuing to remain on detention on 8 July 2025. The proviso, therefore, has no application.

10. Ms Kalra earnestly endeavoured to convince the court that the period of 90 days should be reckoned from the date of passing of the (7) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rules (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days: Provided that no such review of suspension shall be necessary in the case of deemed suspension under sub-rule (2), if the Government servant continues to be under suspension at the time of completion of ninety days of suspension and the ninety days period in such case will count from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released from detention or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later. formal order of suspension which is 22 May 2025. The submission, unfortunately, fails to impress. Rule 10(6) unequivocally requires the period of 90 days to be reckoned “from the effective date of suspension”. The effective date of suspension, by operation of Rule 10(2)(a), was undisputedly 10 April 2025. The Court cannot postpone it to 22 May 2025, in the teeth of the Rule.

11. Besides, the order of suspension of the respondent itself states that it was effective from 10 April 2025. Ms Kalra’s submission, therefore, is contrary to Rule 10(2)(a) as well as to the express covenant in the order of suspension of the respondent.

12. In fact, in the case of a person who is detained, Rule 10(2)(a) ipso facto places the officer concerned under suspension from the date of his detention provided the detention is for a period of more than 48 hours. The rule does not therefore even envisage passing of any further formal order of suspension at all. As such, the said formal order of suspension, even if passed, can have no legal effect, in so far as computation of the period available for review of the order of suspension under Rule 10(6) is concerned.

13. This position in recognized even in the order of suspension which, though issued on 22 May 2025, was correctly made effective from 10 April 2025.

14. As such, the suspension of the respondent not having been continued prior to 8 July 2025, the view of the Tribunal that the suspension came to an end on the said date is unexceptionable.

15. Apart from directing reinstatement, the Tribunal has granted continuity of service and salary.