2026:HHC:19775 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 4246 of 2026 Decided on : 26.05.2026 Shri Raj Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Ms. Suchitra Sen, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned suspension order dated 02.09.2025 contained in Annexure P-2 passed by the respondent No. 3 may kindly be held to be wrong, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice, keeping in view Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-5 respectively and consequently, the respondents be directed to release entire due and admissible salary to the petitioner for the 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:19775 month of August, 2025 and also, w.e.f; September, 2025 to till date alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, by issuing writ of mandamus and justice be done. (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as on duty for the period of deemed suspension from 18.08.2025 to 31.08.2025 for all intents and purposes and justice be done.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner, who was serving as a Beldar on regular basis, was arrested on 18.08.2025, upon registration of an FIR against him i.e. FIR No. 111/2025, dated 18.08.2025, registered at Police Station Dharampur, Mandi, under Section 331(4) and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS’). The petitioner was released on bail on 21.08.2025 and he reported back on duty on 01.09.2025. Thereafter, he was suspended on 02.09.2025 and as the suspension order of the petitioner was neither reviewed nor revoked, the petitioner approached this Court praying for the reliefs, already enumerated hereinabove. 3. The basic contention of the petitioner is that there 3 2026:HHC:19775 was no review of the suspension order within the mandatory period of 90 days in terms of Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘CCS (CCA) Rules’) and therefore, thereafter, the suspension order was rendered invalid. When this case was listed on 14.05.2026, the following order was passed:- “Learned Additional Advocate General has handed over instructions dated 13.05.2026, in terms whereof, the Court stands informed that the suspension of the petitioner was reviewed and the same has been revoked on 11.05.2026. This Court is of the considered view that in case the suspension order passed against the petitioner on 01.09.2025, was not reviewed within 90 days as from the date of the passing of the said suspension order then it automatically became invalid after the expiry of 90 days from the said date. The instructions do not reflect that there was review of the order of suspension within 90 days as from 01.09.2025. Faced with this situation, learned Additional Advocate General submits that he may be granted some time to apprise the Court as to whether there was any 4 2026:HHC:19775 earlier review of the suspension order or not. List on 20.05.2026. Instructions in the meanwhile.” 4. Today, learned Deputy Advocate General has produced instructions dated 19.05.2026, received from Executive Engineer, Dharampur Division, H.P.PWD, Dharampur, which reads as under:- “To The Ld. Advocate General, Shimla, H.P. Subject:- CWP No. 4246 of 2026, titled as Raj Kumar v/s State of HP& others. Sir, With reference to the subject cited above, it is intimated that the suspension order of the petitioner was not reviewed earlier. Consequently, the suspension was revoked under Rule 10(5) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, vide this office letter No. 2364-70 dated 11.05.2026. In view of the above, you are requested to apprise the Hon'ble High Court accordingly on the date of hearing i.c. on 20.05.2026.” 5. Part IV of the CCS (CCA) Rules deals with suspension. Rule 10 (2) thereof provides that a government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under 5 2026:HHC:19775 suspension by an order of appointing authority 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 48 hours. 6. A perusal of Annexure P-2, in terms whereof, the petitioner was placed under suspension, demonstrates that the petitioner was placed under suspension by the Authority by invoking sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Sub- Rule (7) of Rule 10 CCS (CCA) Rules further provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-Rule (1) or sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 shall not be valid after the period of 90 days unless it is extended after review for a further period before the expiry of 90 days. Proviso thereto further provides 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 90 days of suspension and the 90 days period in which 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 6 2026:HHC:19775 detention is intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later. 7. In the present case, the petitioner was detained on 18.08.2025 and released on bail on 21.08.2025. He reported back on duty on 01.09.2025 and he was placed under suspension on 02.09.2025. Therefore, even if it is to be taken that the factum of the detention of the petitioner came to the knowledge of the employer only on 01.09.2025, when he rejoined his duty after being released on bail, as the petitioner, thereafter, was placed under suspension on 02.09.2025, which deemed suspension in fact is from the date the petitioner was placed in custody, the suspension ought to have been reviewed within 90 days either from the date of the detention of the petitioner or at least as from 02.09.2025 i.e. the date on which the petitioner was placed under suspension. 8. A harmonious reading of the order passed by this Court on 14.05.2026 and instructions imparted today to the Court by Executive Engineer, Dharampur Division, H.P.PWD, Dharampur, demonstrates that the suspension of the petitioner was reviewed and revoked on 11.05.2026 i.e. beyond 90 days 7 2026:HHC:19775 as from 02.09.2025 and the suspension order of the petitioner was not reviewed before 11.05.2026. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Union of India and others vs. Dipak Mali, (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 222, has been pleased to hold that modification or revocation of the order of suspension is required to be done before the expiry of 90 days from the date of order of suspension and as categorically provided under sub-rule (7) of Rule 10, the order of suspension made or deemed, would not be valid after a period of 90 days, unless it was extended after review for a further period of 90 days. Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that the order of suspension would not survive after the period of 90 days unless it was extended after review and on the facts of the said case, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that as the review had not been conducted within 90 days from the date of suspension, it became invalid after 90 days since neither was there review nor extension within the period of 90 days. Hon’ble Supreme Court thereafter held that subsequent review or extension could not revive the order which had already become invalid after the expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension. 8 2026:HHC:19775 10. Similarly, in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India through its Secretary and another, (2015) 7 Supreme Court Cases 291, Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to reiterate this principle and the relevant paragraph of said judgment is being quoted herein below:- “21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge- sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognised principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the 9 2026:HHC:19775 prosecution. We recognise that the previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of Commission that pending a the Central criminal Vigilance investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.” 11. Therefore, in light of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, as in the present case, the suspension order of the petitioner was not reviewed within 90 days as from the date when the same was passed, it became invalid after the expiry of 90 days. Thereafter, the continued suspension of the petitioner till the time the same was revoked on 11.05.2026, was illegal and is declared as such. 12. The petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned suspension order dated 02.09.2025, is held to be invalid after the expiry of 90 days as from the date when the same was passed. The petitioner shall be deemed to be on duty after 10 2026:HHC:19775 expiry of 90 days with effect from 02.09.2025 with all consequential benefits. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 26, 2026 (Shivank Thakur)