it2025_00923 — As per FR-54-B, the competent authority is required to pass an order under FR-54-B (1) regarding the treatment of the suspension period simultaneously with the order revoking the suspension. In the absence of such an order, the authority is denuded from passing an order under FR-54-B (3) or (5) subsequently to review the treatment of the suspension period

IT Rules

As per FR-54-B, the competent authority is required to pass an order under FR-54-B (1) regarding the treatment of the suspension period simultaneously with the order revoking the suspension. In the absence of such an order, the authority is denuded from passing an order under FR-54-B (3) or (5) subsequently to review the treatment of the suspension period — The given chunk discusses an Original Application (OA) filed by an applicant challenging the deferment of a decision regarding the treatment of their suspension period and pay during disciplinary pro... — Facts: The Applicant, while serving as Joint Commissioner, was placed under deemed suspension with effect from 27-3-2021 under Rule 10 (2)
(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, following her arrest in a criminal case. Although she was subsequently released on bail, her suspension was periodically extended for 180 days at a time. No major penalty charge-sheet was issued within the initial 90 days of suspension. Aggrieved by the continued suspension, the Applicant approached the Hon’ble Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 249 of 2021. The Hon’ble Tribunal, vide order, dated 29-3-2022, quashed the initial suspension order and all subsequent extensions, holding them to be void and directed reinstatement of the Applicant with payment of salary after adjusting subsistence allowance, along with interest at 8%, leaving the treatment of the suspension period to be decided as per rules. The Respondents challenged the Hon’ble Tribunal’s order before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, which disposed of the matter on 28-9-2022 by directing early service of the charge-memo and completion of departmental proceedings within six months, with reinstatement in a non-sensitive post if proceedings extended beyond one year. The SLP filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was later withdrawn. Meanwhile, a major penalty charge-sheet was issued on 7-6-2023. During the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the Suspension Review Committee recommended revocation of the Applicant’s suspension, which was accepted on 21-6-2023 and pending finalization of the disciplinary / court proceedings, the treatment of suspension period and pay and allowance for the suspension period, shall be reviewed on its own motion after the conclusion of disciplinary / criminal proceedings in terms of F.R.54-B (1) and (6). Aggrieved by this deferment, the Applicant filed the present OA seeking to treat the suspension period as duty and to pay full pay and allowances, interest and other consequential benefits. The learned Counsel for the Applicant argued that Para. 4.2 of the impugned order, dated 21-6-2023 violated FR-54-B as no specific decision was taken on the treatment of the suspension period and pay and allowances at the time of reinstatement. It was submitted that FR-54-B mandates that the competent authority must also take a decision regarding the treatment of the period of suspension at the time of reinstatement of a suspended employee and that failure to follow the procedure renders the order liable to be quashed to that extent. According to the learned Counsel for the Applicant, the issue is no longer res integra and he placed reliance on the earlier decision of this Hon’ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 1508 of 1991, Girdhari Lal v. Delhi Administration and others, decided on 11-5-1993 and the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, dated 11-8-2025 passed in W.P. (C) No. 10948 of 2019, Tushar Ranjan Mohanty v. Union of India. The Respondents contended that the impugned order, dated 21-6-2023 was validly passed as per the recommendations of the Review Committee. As criminal and departmental proceedings against the Applicant are still pending, they lawfully reserved the decision on treatment of the suspension period under FR 54-B(6) and relied upon order, dated 17-4-2023 passed by Hon’ble CAT, Allahabad Bench in O.A. No. 163 of 2022 in the case of Mukesh Meena v. Union of India and the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, dated 26-5-2023 in W.P.
(c) No. 6645 of 2023 in the case of Prashant Kumar Sinha v. Union of India.

IT Rules

As per FR-54-B, the competent authority is required to pass an order under FR-54-B (1) regarding the treatment of the suspension period simultaneously with the order revoking the suspension. In the absence of such an order, the authority is denuded from passing an order under FR-54-B (3) or (5) subsequently to review the treatment of the suspension period — The given chunk discusses an Original Application (OA) filed by an applicant challenging the deferment of a decision regarding the treatment of their suspension period and pay during disciplinary pro... — Facts: The Applicant, while serving as Joint Commissioner, was placed under deemed suspension with effect from 27-3-2021 under Rule 10 (2)
(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, following her arrest in a criminal case. Although she was subsequently released on bail, her suspension was periodically extended for 180 days at a time. No major penalty charge-sheet was issued within the initial 90 days of suspension. Aggrieved by the continued suspension, the Applicant approached the Hon’ble Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 249 of 2021. The Hon’ble Tribunal, vide order, dated 29-3-2022, quashed the initial suspension order and all subsequent extensions, holding them to be void and directed reinstatement of the Applicant with payment of salary after adjusting subsistence allowance, along with interest at 8%, leaving the treatment of the suspension period to be decided as per rules. The Respondents challenged the Hon’ble Tribunal’s order before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, which disposed of the matter on 28-9-2022 by directing early service of the charge-memo and completion of departmental proceedings within six months, with reinstatement in a non-sensitive post if proceedings extended beyond one year. The SLP filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was later withdrawn. Meanwhile, a major penalty charge-sheet was issued on 7-6-2023. During the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the Suspension Review Committee recommended revocation of the Applicant’s suspension, which was accepted on 21-6-2023 and pending finalization of the disciplinary / court proceedings, the treatment of suspension period and pay and allowance for the suspension period, shall be reviewed on its own motion after the conclusion of disciplinary / criminal proceedings in terms of F.R.54-B (1) and (6). Aggrieved by this deferment, the Applicant filed the present OA seeking to treat the suspension period as duty and to pay full pay and allowances, interest and other consequential benefits. The learned Counsel for the Applicant argued that Para. 4.2 of the impugned order, dated 21-6-2023 violated FR-54-B as no specific decision was taken on the treatment of the suspension period and pay and allowances at the time of reinstatement. It was submitted that FR-54-B mandates that the competent authority must also take a decision regarding the treatment of the period of suspension at the time of reinstatement of a suspended employee and that failure to follow the procedure renders the order liable to be quashed to that extent. According to the learned Counsel for the Applicant, the issue is no longer res integra and he placed reliance on the earlier decision of this Hon’ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 1508 of 1991, Girdhari Lal v. Delhi Administration and others, decided on 11-5-1993 and the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, dated 11-8-2025 passed in W.P. (C) No. 10948 of 2019, Tushar Ranjan Mohanty v. Union of India. The Respondents contended that the impugned order, dated 21-6-2023 was validly passed as per the recommendations of the Review Committee. As criminal and departmental proceedings against the Applicant are still pending, they lawfully reserved the decision on treatment of the suspension period under FR 54-B(6) and relied upon order, dated 17-4-2023 passed by Hon’ble CAT, Allahabad Bench in O.A. No. 163 of 2022 in the case of Mukesh Meena v. Union of India and the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, dated 26-5-2023 in W.P.
(c) No. 6645 of 2023 in the case of Prashant Kumar Sinha v. Union of India.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text