Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Dr. Ravindra Narayan Das

Delhi High Court · 28 May 2025 · 2025:DHC:4651-DB
Navin Chawla; Renu Bhatnagar
W.P.(C) 7737/2025
2025:DHC:4651-DB
administrative appeal_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court upheld the CAT order quashing suspension beyond 270 days without charge-sheet under CCS Rules, directing reinstatement of the suspended government servant.

Full Text
Translation output
GNNNnc
WP(C) 7737/2025
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 28.05.2025
W.P.(C) 7737/2025
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat, SC, Mr.Nitesh kumar Singh, Adv.
VERSUS
DR.RAVINDRA NARAYAN DAS ....Respondent
Through: Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Ms.Kumud Lata Das, Ms.Pooja, Mr.Nikunj Arora, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
CAV 218/2025
JUDGMENT

1. As the learned counsel for the respondent/caveator has entered appearance, the Caveat stands discharged. CM APPL. 34276/2025 (Exemption)

2. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 7737/2025 & CM APPL. 34275/2025

3. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 1646/2025, titled Dr.Ravindra Narahyan Das v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the said OA filed by the respondent herein with the GNNNnc following directions:

“14. In view of the aforesaid, the present O.A. deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed with the following orders: i). The continuation of suspension of the applicant beyond 270 days vide impugned order dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure A-1) is held to be invalid and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. ii). The applicant shall be reinstated in service. iii). The applicant shall be entitled for all consequential benefits in accordance with law. iv). The aforesaid exercise shall be complied with by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”

4. The limited ground of challenge to the Impugned Order is that though admittedly the charge-sheet had not been issued to the respondent till the passing of the Impugned Order, and 270 days from the order of suspension passed under Rule 10(1)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (in short, ‘CCS Rules’) had expired, the order extending the period of suspension of the respondent was still under operation when the charge-sheet was issued, that is, on 23.05.2025.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice of this petition, however, submits that the charge-sheet has not been issued, or at least served on the respondent even as on today.

6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, however, find no force in the same. GNNNnc

7. The Proviso to Rule 10(7) of the CCS Rules clearly provides that in a case where no charge-sheet has been issued under the Rules, the total period of suspension cannot extend beyond 270 days from the date of the order of suspension passed in terms of Clause (a) of Sub- Rule 1 of Rule 10 of the CCS Rules. We reproduce the Proviso as under: “Provided further that in a case where no charge-sheet is issued under these rules, the total period under suspension or deemed suspension, as the case may be, including any extended period in terms of sub-rule (6) shall not exceed,- (a) two hundred seventy days from the date of order of suspension, if the Government servant is placed under suspension in terms of Clause (a) of sub-rule (I).”

8. In the present case, the order placing the respondent under suspension in exercise of power under Rule 10(1)(a) of the CCS Rules, was passed by the petitioners on 29.05.2024. The period of 270 days had expired on 27.02.2025, and admittedly, the charge-sheet had not been issued till that date to the respondent. Therefore, in terms of the Proviso to Sub-Rule 7 to Rule 10 of the CCS Rules, the order of suspension automatically ended and the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the above direction.

9. Therefore, we find no merit in the present petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Pending application is also disposed of being infructuous.

10. However, the disposal of the present Writ Petition will not GNNNnc prevent the petitioners from passing any further order(s), if permissible in law.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J MAY 28, 2025/Arya/VS