Court Clarifies Suspension Does Not Automatically Lapse After 90 Days if Departmental Chargesheet is Served; Orders Fresh Review of Suspension Necessity
In a significant judgment delivered on September 3, 2026, the Chhattisgarh High Court (Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) clarified the legal position regarding the continuation of suspension of government employees beyond 90 days under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.
The case arose from a writ petition filed by Shivam Sahay Chouhan, an Assistant Grade-III officer in the Collector’s office, Korba district, who was suspended on March 25, 2022, in connection with a criminal case registered against him. Although the departmental charge-sheet was served on him within the prescribed period (April 20, 2022), the order extending his suspension was passed belatedly on August 28, 2023, after more than one and a half years. The Single Judge had earlier set aside both the original suspension and its extension on the ground that the extension order came after the 90-day period from suspension, relying on Supreme Court precedent in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015) and a recent Chhattisgarh High Court judgment in Kishore Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh.
The State of Chhattisgarh challenged this order in an intra-court appeal, contending that the suspension does not automatically lapse after 90 days if the charge-sheet is served within the period prescribed by Rule 9 of the 1966 Rules. The State also argued that the extension order passed on August 28, 2023, was reasoned and valid, considering the gravity of the allegations and the impact on office discipline, and that the respondent had statutory remedies under Rule 23 which he did not exhaust.
The Division Bench reversed the Single Judge’s decision, holding that:
- The suspension order does not automatically stand revoked merely because a formal extension order is not passed within 90 days, provided the departmental charge-sheet has been served within that period.
- Rule 9(5-A) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Rules explicitly states that suspension continues until modified or revoked by the competent authority unless the charge-sheet is not served within the time frame and no extension is granted.
- The Supreme Court’s ruling in Ajay Kumar Choudhary must be read in context, emphasizing the prevention of indefinite suspension where charges are not served timely, and does not impose an inflexible 90-day cut-off for all suspension continuations.
- The continuation of suspension must be periodically reviewed, reasoned, and not be punitive in nature. The competent authority should consider the nature of allegations, stage of disciplinary/criminal proceedings, and whether a less restrictive alternative such as posting to a non-sensitive post is appropriate.
- The order dated August 28, 2023, which extended the suspension, was passed after due consideration of relevant factors and cannot be invalidated solely on the ground of delay.
- The writ petition was dismissed, but the competent authority was directed to undertake a fresh and meaningful review of the suspension in light of the court’s observations.
The judgment underscores the importance of balancing the need to maintain discipline and prevent undue hardship to government employees during suspension. It clarifies that suspension is an administrative tool and not punishment, and must be exercised within the statutory framework and principles of fairness.
This ruling provides guidance to administrative authorities and courts across India regarding the interpretation of suspension rules, particularly emphasizing that automatic revocation after 90 days is not a universal principle and depends on the facts and applicable service rules.
Bottom Line:
Suspension of a government employee cannot be automatically revoked after 90 days if the departmental charge-sheet has been duly served within the prescribed period. Judicial review must consider statutory provisions and administrative reasoning behind suspension orders.
Statutory provision(s):
Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 – Rule 9(2-b), Rule 9(5-A), Rule 23; Indian Penal Code Section 509B; Information Technology Act Section 67-A
State of Chhattisgarh v. Shivam Sahay Chouhan, (Chhattisgarh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2973040
