Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040004062026 2026:GAU-AP:538 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/115/2026 Khoda Rana Son of Shri Khoda Piji, a permanent resident of E Sector Itanagar, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 4 Ors represented by the Commissioner, Department of Transport, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Transport Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Transport Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4:The Deputy Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Transport Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. 5:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Transport Page No.# 2/6 Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Naharlagun Advocate for the Petitioner : Kemo Lollen, Arun Yun, Maryum Sora, Geli Taye, D Ado Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 29.05.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment : N/A Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced : Yes Judgment & Order (Oral) Heard Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents. 2. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the suspension order vide No. TPT(B)-11023(14)/1/2024/339 dated 12.08.2025, issued on 20.08.2025, issued by the Commissioner, Transport Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, whereby the petitioner is placed under suspension in terms of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services Page No.# 3/6 (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [hereinafter referred to as the “CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965”], pursuant to disciplinary proceedings being under way on the alleged malpractice in awarding work contracts, thereby incurring unauthorized expenditure, on the ground that the respondent authority has failed to review the suspension order within the mandatory period of 90 (ninety) days as per Sub-Rule (6) and (7) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Foreman in the Department of Transport, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, in the year 1997 and thereafter promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Auto) vide order dated 18.10.2010. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Auto) (Officiating) vide order dated 23.12.2021 in which the petitioner is serving. 4. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 12.08.2025 issued on 20.08.2025 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings relating to alleged malpractice in awarding contract works thereby incurring unauthorized expenditure. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that even after expiry of the mandatory period of 90 days from the effective date of suspension, the suspension order has neither been reviewed nor revoked in accordance with Sub-Rule (6) and (7) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 19.03.2026 seeking revocation of suspension and reinstatement in service, which has not been considered by the respondents. 6. Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suspension order was passed on 12.08.2025, which was issued on 20.08.2025 and the statutory period of 90 (ninety) days expired on 18.11.2025. He submits that the Page No.# 4/6 respondent authorities ought to have reviewed the suspension order before expiry of 90 (ninety) days; however, even after expiry of more than 129 (one hundred twenty-nine) days thereafter, the suspension order has neither been reviewed nor revoked, thereby illegally placing the petitioner under continued suspension in violation of Sub-Rule (6) and (7) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 7. He submits that the action of the respondent authorities is in clear violation of the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291. He further submits that the impugned suspension order dated 12.08.2025 has, in fact, ceased to operate w.e.f. 18.11.2025, as no review has been conducted within the mandatory period of 90 (ninety) days from the date of suspension. Accordingly, he submits that the suspension order dated 12.08.2025 may be set aside and quashed and a direction be issued for reinstatement of the petitioner in service forthwith. 8. Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension for malpractice in awarding contract works, thereby incurring unauthorized expenditure to the Government. He submits that a memorandum of charges has been issued to the petitioner vide order dated 07.04.2026 along with the statement of Articles of Charges, Statement of Imputation, list of documents and list of witnesses, which has been duly acknowledged by the petitioner. However, he fairly submits that the suspension order does not appear to have been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 9. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and Page No.# 5/6 perused the materials on record. 10. It is not in dispute that the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is applicable and followed in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made shall be reviewed by the authority competent to modify or revoke the suspension before expiry of 90 (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. It further provides that subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension and that extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding 180 (one hundred eighty) days at a time. Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 10 provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Sub-Rule (1) or Sub-Rule (2) shall cease to be valid after a period of 90 (ninety) days unless it is extended after review for a further period before the expiry of the said period. 11. Admittedly, in the present case, the mandatory period of 90 (ninety) days from the effective date of suspension of the petitioner expired on 18.11.2025. The respondent authorities have neither reviewed nor revoked the suspension order within the said period. Thus, the authorities have acted in violation of Sub-Rule (6) and (7) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra). 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) has held that the currency of a suspension order should not ordinarily extend beyond 3 (three) months if within the said period the memorandum of charges/charge- sheet is not served upon the delinquent officer. It has further been held that Page No.# 6/6 where the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the suspension. 13. In the present case, the memorandum of charges was issued only on 07.04.2026, i.e. after about eight months from the date of suspension and much after expiry of the statutory period of 90 days. As noted above, neither any review has been undertaken nor has the suspension order been revoked in accordance with the mandate of Rule 10(6) and (7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, resultantly, the petitioner has been subjected to continued suspension without adherence to the statutory requirement, which is not permissible in law. Thus, the continued suspension of the petitioner cannot be sustained. 14. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be allowed to remain under continuous suspension without compliance of the mandatory requirement of review under Sub-Rule (6) and Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, even if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet has been issued subsequently. Consequently, the impugned suspension order dated 12.08.2025 issued by the Commissioner, Transport, Government of Arunachal Pradesh (signed/communicated on 20.08.2025) is hereby set aside and quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. It is, however, made clear that the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law. 15. Writ petition stands allowed, accordingly. No order as to cost(s). JUDGE Comparing Assistant