OM PRAKASH SINGH vs ICAR on 10 November 2026

O R D E R

[ORAL] [Per: Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Member(A)] Heard learned counsels for the applicant and the respondents.

KABI SURYARO OP KABI

2. The reliefs that have been sought in this OA are delineated as follows:- “(A) Order dated 28.04.2026, issued by the Director, Indian Council of Agricultural Technology Application Research Institute, Zone-IV, Jagdeo Path, Patna, as contained in Annexure-A/1, may be quashed and set aside, beyond its 90 days. (B) The applicant may be directed to be re-instated back to his post with all consequential benefits. (C) Any other relief/reliefs as the applicant is entitled and Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.”

3. In this OA, the applicant has prayed that the order that was issued on 28.04.2026 (Annexure A/1 - page 11 of the OA) which pertains to his suspension with immediate effect may be quashed and set aside beyond the period of 90 days. This prayer has been made on the grounds that if a Government servant is placed under suspension, the order of suspension should not normally extend beyond 90 days if the charge-sheet is not served to the charged officer.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary application which indicates that the charge-sheet has been served on him vide Annexure-A/7 on 06.11.2026. Learned counsel has fairly submitted that this annexure should have been marked as Annexure- A/6, but it has been wrongly marked as Annexure-A/7. Subsequent annexure Annexure-A/7 that has been issued on the same date states that the applicant has been released from suspension and he has been asked to assume the official duty. In view of this

KABI SURYARO OP KABI

subsequent and recent development, now his grievances have been substantially taken care of as the suspension order has already been revoked. Though his prayer was its quashing beyond the period of 90 days but he has been released from suspension w.e.f. 07.11.2026.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the period of suspension will be decided as per rules after conclusion of the departmental proceedings against the applicant. But so far as suspension is concerned, there is nothing substantially to be adjudicated upon except the decision with regard to the period of suspension beyond the period of 90 days.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant is not averse to the disposal of this OA with a direction to the respondent officials to complete the disciplinary proceeding as expeditiously as possible as per the applicable rules/law/procedure so that the period of suspension is also decided at the earliest.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to this prayer of deciding this disciplinary proceeding as per rules/law/procedure subject to cooperation by the applicant.

8. It is being further observed that the respondent officials have statutory power to conduct the disciplinary proceeding ex-parte in case the applicant does not cooperate. Hence, the so called non-

KABI SURYARO OP KABI

cooperation should not be treated as an excuse for going on extending the process of disciplinary proceeding.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant has fairly submitted that he will instruct the applicant to cooperate with the disciplinary proceeding.

10. With the consent of both the parties, the OA is disposed of as having been rendered largely infructuous and a further direction to the respondent authorities to decide the period of suspension after expeditiously concluding the process for conclusion of departmental proceedings as per applicable law/rule/procedure in view of the observation made above especially in para 8. No order as to costs. Sd/-

Sd/- (Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Justice Narendra Kumar Johari) Member (A) Member(J) Srk.

KABI SURYARO OP KABI