2026:HHC:16306 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4042 of 2026 Decided on: 07.05.2026 Sh. Vinay Jishtu …….Petitioner Versus The State of H.P. and another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy AG. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) Kindly call for the records of the case and issue appropriate writ, orders or directions, in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents and the order dated 08.12.2025 after 21.03.2026, being legally and unsustainable may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to revoke the suspension order dated 8.12.2025, Annexure P-1 of the petitioner and reinstate the petitioner as a Senior Resident Doctor with the IGMC, Shimla, forthwith with all consequential benefits.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:16306 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner, who was serving as a Senior Resident in Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla, was arrested in FIR No. 22 of 2025, dated 04.09.2025, registered under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, at Mahila Police Station, New Shimla, Shimla, on 06.10.2025 and was placed under suspension vide order dated 08.12.2025 (Annexure P-1), w.e.f. 06.10.2025. The petitioner was released on bail on 20.12.2025 and thereafter, he reported for duty to the employer and also requested for revocation of the suspension order on 22.12.2025. To be more precise, after release of the petitioner on bail on 20.12.2025, he reported for duty on 22.12.2025 and approached the Authority for the revocation of the suspension on 18.03.2026, i.e. before the expiry of 90 days from the effective date of suspension. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite that fact that there was no review of the suspension order within 90 days as from the date of the grant of bail to him or when he reported back for duty, the respondent-Department is still keeping the petitioner under suspension, which act of the respondents is bad in law. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that in terms of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the 3 2026:HHC:16306 appointing Authority or any Authority, to which it is subordinate or the Disciplinary Authority etc., as envisaged under the said Rule, by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension inter alia where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending or where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in terms of Sub Rule (2) thereof, a Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the 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. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that further in terms of Sub Rule (6) thereof, an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under said Rule shall be reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension before expiry of 90 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. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in the present case, in light of the fact that the procedure prescribed in Sub Rule (6) of Rule 10 was not adhered to and no review of the suspension order was undertaken by the 4 2026:HHC:16306 Authority before the expiry of 90 days from the effective date of suspension or even from the date when the bail was granted to the petitioner or further from the date when he reported for duty to the employer, the continuation of the said suspension order and further extension thereof by reviewing the same, after the expiry of 90 days, as envisaged in Sub Rule (6) of Rule 10, is bad in law. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Union of India and others vs. Dipak Mali (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 222, and Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India through its Secretary and another, (2015) 7 Supreme Court Cases 291. 4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General placed on record instructions received from the Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. On the strength thereof, he submitted that in the present case, the case of the petitioner was to be reviewed before 21.03.2026, i.e. 90 days from the date he was released from custody, but due to administrative reasons/Vidhan Sabha Session, the same could not be reviewed well in time. However, the same was reviewed by the Review Committee on 07.04.2026 and as per the recommendation of the Committee, the suspension of the petitioner was extended for a further period of 90 5 2026:HHC:16306 days. Accordingly, he submitted that as the Authority acted in the case as per Rules and further as the review of the suspension order before the expiry of 90 days could not be undertaken on account of reasons beyond the control of the Authority, there is no merit in the present petition and the same deserves dismissal. 5. I have heard leaned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and also learned Deputy Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith and the instructions handed over by learned Deputy Advocate General. 6. For ready reference, relevant part of the instructions placed on record by learned Deputy Advocate General, is being quoted herein below:- “I am directed to refer to the subject cited above and to say that the Director, Health Services Himachal Pradesh vide his letter dated 17.11.2025 intimated this department that the petitioner i.e. Dr. Vinay Jishtu was arrested by the police on 06.10.2025 in FIR No. 22/2025 dated, 04.09.2025 under section 64(2) (n) BNS & 6 of POSCO Act registered at First Women Police Station BCS Shimla. Distt. Shimla and continued in judicial custody. Accordingly, he was placed under "Deemed Suspension" w.e.f. 06.10.2025 i.e. from the 6 2026:HHC:16306 date of his arrest and his Head Quarter was fixed at Directorate of Health Services, HP vide order dated 08.12.2025 (as and when released from jail). Thereafter, the Director, Health Services vide his letter dated 27.12.2025 intimated that the petitioner has reported for duty in the Directorate on 22.12.2025 on grant of bail which was allowed by the Ld Additional Session Judge, POSCO Shinila vide order dated 20.12.2025. As per provision, contained in Rule 10 (7) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, case of the petitioner was to be reviewed before 21.03.2026 (i.e. the 90 days from which he was released from custody i.e. from 20.12.2025) but due to some administrative reasons/ Vidhan Sabha Session, the same could not be reviewed well in time. However, the same was reviewed by the Review Committee on 07.04.2026 and as per recommendations of the Committee, the suspension of the petitioner has been extended for a further period of 90 days i.e. from 22.03.2026 to 19.06.2026 vide order dated 08.04.2026 (Annexure-R-1). In addition, the latest status of report of Internal complaint Committee has also been sought from the Principal, IGMC Shimla vide letter dated 08.04.2026 (Annexure-R-II). You are, therefore, requested to apprise the Hon'ble Court 7 2026:HHC:16306 with the factual position, accordingly.” 7. In the present case, it is not in dispute that after the petitioner was arrested, post lodging of the FIR against him, he was placed under deemed suspension after 48 hours of his arrest w.e.f. the date of lodging of the FIR. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner was released from custody on 20.12.2025 and the deemed suspension order was not reviewed within 90 days as from said date. 8. In the present case, the petitioner was placed under suspension on account of the eventuality, as is envisaged under Rule 10 (2) (a) of the Rules ibid. Therefore, as the deemed suspension of the petitioner was under this particular clause, review thereof within 90 days has to be read in context with Sub Rule (7) of Rule 10 read with Sub Rule (6) of Rule 10. 9. Sub Rule (6) of Rule 10 provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Rule 10 shall be reviewed by the Authority which is competent to review or revoke the same before the expiry of 90 days from the effective date of suspension on the recommendation of the Review Committee. Further, Sub Rule (7) of Rule 10 provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of 90 days unless it 8 2026:HHC:16306 is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of 90 days. The proviso attached to this sub-rule 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 this 90 days period in such a case will start to 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 detention is intimated to the appointing authority, whichever is later. 10. Thus, a harmonious reading of sub-rule 7 of Rule 10 with the proviso thereunder demonstrates that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made inter alia sub-rule (2) “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”. Meaning thereby that unless the suspension order is mandatorily reviewed before expiry of 90 days, the order ispo facto becomes an invalid order. 11. In the present case, the petitioner was released from custody on 20.12.2025 and it is not the case of the respondents that they were not aware of this fact. Further, the petitioner reported for 9 2026:HHC:16306 duty in the Directorate on 22.12.2025 and even if it is to be assumed that the employer was not aware of the release of the petitioner from custody on 20.12.2025, they became aware of this fact on 22.12.2025. 12. In terms of the instructions imparted to the Court by the Joint Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, it is an admitted position that deemed suspension order of the petitioner was not reviewed before expiry of 90 days, be it from 20.12.2025 or from 22.12.2025. In this factual matrix, the provisions of sub-rule (7) of Rule 10 ibid come into picture and the suspension order becomes an invalid order after the expiry of 90 days from said dates. 13. 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 10 2026:HHC:16306 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. 14. 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 c 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 11 2026:HHC:16306 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 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 the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us. 15. In view of the fact that in the present case, the order of deemed suspension of the petitioner was not reviewed by the Authority within 90 days as from the date of release of the petitioner from custody or within 90 days as from the date when he reported for duty, the order of suspension lost its efficacy after the expiry of 90 days and became invalid after the expiry of 90 days. Subsequent 12 2026:HHC:16306 extension thereof is of no consequence, as the employer could not have reviewed the order which had already become invalid. Therefore, in view of the above discussion as well as the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this petition is allowed. As the suspension order was not revoked by the Authorities within 90 days as from 22.12.2025, i.e., the date when the petitioner reported back for duty, after being released from custody, the same was rendered invalid and the subsequent extension of the suspension order after expiry of 90 days, is held to be non est in the eyes of law. The petitioner shall be deemed to be on duty after expiry of 90 days as from 22.12.2025 with all consequential benefits. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 05, 2026 (narender)