Suspension Cannot Be Extended Without Issuing Charge-Sheet: Delhi High Court

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla has stated that an employee’s suspension cannot be validly extended on the ground of “pending disciplinary proceedings” unless a charge-sheet has actually been issued. Any extension made on this erroneous ground is invalid, entitling the employee to reinstatement.

Background of the Case

The petitioner was suspended based on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him for alleged misconduct during his posting with 80 RCC/755 BRTF under Project Swastik. The initial suspension was for 90 days.

The suspension was extended twice—first on May 27, 2025, for 90 days (till August 26, 2025), and then again on August 22, 2025, for another 90 days. Both extension orders cited that “disciplinary proceedings were pending.” However, no charge-sheet had been issued against the petitioner during this period. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Arguments

The petitioner argued that while the original suspension order cited “contemplated proceedings,” the extension orders wrongly stated that “proceedings were pending,” despite no charge-sheet being issued.

The respondents, however, contended that the suspension was valid under Rule 10(1)(a) as proceedings were contemplated. They added that the charge-sheet was imminent and awaiting CVC approval, and therefore the suspension extensions were justified.

Court’s Findings

The Bench noted that under Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, suspension must be reviewed every 90 days, up to a maximum of 270 days. Importantly, the Court clarified that disciplinary proceedings, under Rule 14(3) and 14(4), commence only after a charge-sheet is issued.

The Court relied on several Supreme Court rulings, including Union of India v. Anil Kumar Sarkar and Coal India Ltd. v. Saroj Kumar Mishra, which held that departmental proceedings begin only upon issuance of a charge-sheet. Since no charge-sheet had been issued, the Court found that the extension orders were factually incorrect.

The Court further observed that an executive order must stand on the reasons stated within it and cannot later be justified by new explanations. It referred to Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner to reinforce that statutory orders must be judged solely on the reasons mentioned at the time they are passed.

Judgment

The Court held that the suspension extension orders dated May 27, 2025, and August 22, 2025, were invalid as they were based on a non-existent ground. The petitioner was therefore entitled to reinstatement.

However, the Court clarified that the authorities retain the right to take lawful action against the petitioner, including issuing a fresh suspension order if deemed necessary.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed.

Download Court Order PDF (This PDF is available for Premium Users Only. Click here to join premium)