JATIN KALITA vs COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC & INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH on 29 September 2026

ORDER

PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This application has been preferred to seek the following relief: “i. Quash and set aside the Impugned suspension order No 15- 21 (57)/2024-Vig. Dated 10.08.2024, impugned order No 15-21 (57)/2024-Vig. Dated 23.10.2024 vide which the suspension was extended by 180 days and impugned order No 15-21 (57)/2024-Vig. Dated 25.04.2025 vide which the suspension of the applicant was further extended by 180 days.

ii. Direct the Respondents to allow the applicant to resume regular duties with immediate effect with all consequential benefits.

iii. Direct the Respondents to consider the applicant as on duty immediately, after the expiry of 90 days of suspension or in alternative after the expiry of 270 days of suspension as per law with all consequential benefits.

iv. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the Applicant.”

2. The applicant while working as Senior Principal Scientist at CSIR-NEIST was placed under suspension on the ground of contemplated disciplinary proceedings arising out of a CBI FIR dated 26.07.2024. Despite the lapse of over 364 days, no statutory charge sheet has been issued under the CCS

SINGSIT

(CCA) Rules, 1965. He is aggrieved with the prolonged suspension-initially ordered on 10.08.2024 under Rule 10(1)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and subsequently extended on 23.10.2024 and 25.04.2025, such extension is illegal and arbitrary.

2.1. According to applicant, initially vide order dated 10.08.2024, a total of fifteen (15) employees of CSIR-NEIST, including the present applicant, were placed under suspension on the ground pending disciplinary proceeding, however, 11 members were reinstated within 90 days without issuance of a charge sheet. Meanwhile the applicant has been kept on suspension, which is discriminatory and arbitrary treatment and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

2.2. Vide order dated 25.04.2025 his suspension was extended for another 180 days after the expiry of 270 days on the same ground adding an additional ground of criminal proceedings pending against him before the Special Judge, CBI Court, Guwahati (Annexure A-3). However, it is pertinent to mention that vide OM No. NEIST-

SINGSIT

19(178)-Vig./24 dated 31.08.2024, followed vide order no. 15-21(157)/2024-Vig. dated 05.05.2025, subsistence allowance with other allowances was allotted to the applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291 and submits that the Hon’ble Court categorically held that suspension cannot extend beyond three months without service of a charge sheet. The prolonged suspension without initiation of departmental proceedings violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Department of Personnel & Training, in its O.М. dated 23.08.2016, directed strict adherence to this mandate, making issuance of a charge sheet within 90 days of suspension mandatory. Further, the CCS (CCA) Amendment Rules, 2022 (G.S.R. 156(E) dated 19.10.2022) inserted an express statutory ceiling under Rule 10(7) limiting the total suspension period to 270 days in cases where no

SINGSIT

charge sheet is issued. The applicant's suspension has far exceeded this limit, rendering it ex facie illegal.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that this Tribunal (Principal Bench, New Delhi), vide order dated 09.07.2025 in OA No. 364 of 2025 in Shri Rama Shankar Sharma Vs UOI (CSIR), directed the reinstatement of Shri Rama Shankar Sharma, former Controller of Finance and Accounts at CSIR-NEIST, who was also named as a co- accused in the same CBI FIR and was suspended on identical grounds as the applicant, as there was no charge sheet filed within the stipulated 270 days of time, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary vs. Union of India.

4.1. Also in the case of Pankaj Atray vs. Union of India & Ors., the Principal Bench, vide order dated 18.12.2023 in O.A. No. 3585/2023, quashed the suspension order on the ground that no statutory charge sheet had been issued within the stipulated 90-day period. The case of the applicant is similarly situated.

SINGSIT

5. Sri V. K. Bhatra, learned Sr. CGSC for the respondents submits that, a raid was conducted by the Anti-Corruption Branch, CBI on 26.07.2024 in CSIR-NEIST, Jorhat and a criminal case under Section 120B IPC, Section 7,7A,8,9,10,12,13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 61(2) BNS was registered against the applicant. The CBI then submitted the Charge-Sheet being Charge Sheet No.26 dated 27.12.2024 before the Learned Special Judge, CBI, Guwahati. Since criminal case against the Applicant is sub-judice before the Learned Special Judge, CBI, Guwahati, the applicant was placed under suspension w.e.f. 10.08.2024 and his suspension was extended time to time due to the pendency of the case. The suspension was issued under Rule 10(2) of the CCS CCA Rules. Since, the period of suspension of 270 days (90 +180) was valid till 06/05/2025, the suspension was again reviewed before expiry of 270 days from the date of initial suspension. Now, in view of change in circumstances owing to criminal

SINGSIT

proceedings pending before the Special Judge , CBI Court, Guwahati, the suspension was modified and further extended for 180 days as per Rule 10(6) of CCS(CCA)Rules, 1965.

6. Sri V. K. Bhatra, Sr. CGSC submits that the now the suspension of the applicant has already been revoked vide order dated 17.10.2025 and the applicant has joined his duties on the same day vide his application dated 17.10.2025.

7. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the revocation order dated 17.10.2025 merely brings the suspension to an end prospectively and does not address the legality or consequences of the prolonged suspension already suffered by the Applicant during the period from 10.08.2024 to 17.10.2025 (i.e., 433 days). The said order is conspicuously silent with regard to the treatment of the suspension period, payment of enhanced subsistence allowance, or grant of consequential service and financial benefits as admissible under the applicable rules and settled law. He seeks that his case be reviewed in parity with

SINGSIT

that of Shri Rama Shankar Sharma (supra), as both arise from the same facts, and similar relief has already been granted.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the pleadings.

9. Applicant was under suspension from 10.08.2024 to 17.10.2025 and reinstated after 433 days. It is admitted position that though his suspension was extended no chargesheet was issued against the applicant within the stipulated period. He was given only subsistence allowance.

10. It is settled law in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that suspension cannot extend beyond three months without service of a charge sheet. The case of the applicant is squarely covered by the order and direction passed by the Principal Bench in O.A No. 364/2025. Now, that the instant applicant has been reinstated, his prayer is to direct the respondents to enhance the subsistence allowance from 50% to 75% of the pay and

SINGSIT

allowances, upon completion of 90 days of suspension as per applicable rules.

11. In view of the above, we dispose of this O.A with a direction upon the respondents to consider the grant of enhanced subsistence allowance to the applicant after expiry of 90 days from the date of the initial suspension order, if not already paid. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

12. Accordingly, the O.A stands disposed of. No costs.

(MALLIKA ARYA) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)

MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

SS

SINGSIT