The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the Union of India, upholding an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which set aside the suspension of a government official. The Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain ruled that the review of a deemed suspension order must be conducted within 90 days of the initial suspension if the employee has been released from custody before that period expires.
The case, titled Union of India v. Gali Sreedhar (W.P.(C) 19586/2025), involved a challenge by the Union of India against the CAT’s order dated August 5, 2025. The Tribunal had set aside the suspension order and subsequent extensions of the respondent, Gali Sreedhar. The core legal issue before the High Court was the interpretation of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, specifically regarding the timeline for reviewing a “deemed suspension” when an employee is released from custody prior to the expiry of the initial 90-day period.
The High Court dismissed the Union of India’s petition, affirming that the authorities failed to review the suspension within the statutory 90-day limit, rendering the subsequent extension orders invalid.
Background of the Case
The respondent, Gali Sreedhar, was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on April 21, 2019, on allegations of accepting a bribe of Rs. 27 lacs. A case was registered under Sections 7 & 8 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Following his arrest, he was deemed to be under suspension.
The respondent was granted bail on June 3, 2019, and was released from judicial custody on June 6, 2019. He informed his department of his release on the same day.
According to the facts noted by the Court, the initial period of 90 days of deemed suspension expired on July 19, 2019. However, the petitioner (Union of India) passed an order purporting to be under Rule 10(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules only on August 30, 2019—well after the 90-day period had lapsed. Subsequent extension orders were also passed, which the respondent challenged before the Tribunal.
Arguments of the Parties
The Petitioner’s Argument: The Union of India, represented by Mr. Siddhartha Shankar Ray, CGSC, argued that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the nuances of Rule 10(2). The counsel submitted that since the respondent was deemed suspended due to detention exceeding 48 hours, the 90-day period for the purposes of extending the suspension under Rule 10(7) should only commence from the date of his release and the intimation thereof.
The petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Dr. Rishi Anand (2017), specifically arguing that suspension continues until modified or revoked unless it falls under specific sub-rules.
The Respondent’s Stand: The respondent, represented by Dr. B. T. Kaul, supported the Tribunal’s decision, emphasizing that since he was released from custody before the initial 90 days expired, the authorities were mandatorily required to review the suspension within that 90-day window.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court rejected the petitioner’s contentions, relying on established precedents and the specific factual matrix of the case.
Interpretation of Rule 10(7): The Bench referred to its previous decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Akil Ahmad (2025:DHC:1901-DB), which interpreted Rule 10(7) of the Rules. The Court observed:
“A bare reading of the above provision would show that it is only where the Government servant is under detention even on the expiry of the 90-days period, that the necessity of passing of an order extending the period of suspension before the expiry of the 90 days period is waived, and it is deemed that the 90 days period shall commence from the date when the Government servant is released from the detention or the fact of his release is communicated to the appointing authority, whichever is later.”
Application to the Present Facts: The Court noted that Gali Sreedhar was released from custody on June 6, 2019, and the authorities were informed immediately. Since this release occurred prior to the expiry of the initial 90 days (which ended on July 19, 2019), the proviso to Rule 10(7)—which allows for a delayed review in cases of continued detention—was not applicable.
The Court held:
“Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to seek the benefit of the proviso to Rule 10(7) of the Rules and the review of the suspension should have taken place within 90 days of the deemed suspension of the respondent under Rule 10(2) of the Rules.”
The Court further expressed surprise at the nature of the order passed by the petitioner, stating:
“In fact, the order dated 30.08.2019 is not even passed under Rule 10(7), but under Rule 10(2) of the Rules. We fail to understand how the petitioner could have invoked Rule 10(2) of the Rules at that stage.”
Distinguishing Precedents: Regarding the petitioner’s reliance on Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Dr. Rishi Anand, the Court clarified that the ratio of that judgment did not apply to the present case. The Court explained that Dr. Rishi Anand dealt with a suspension made “in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings,” whereas the present case concerned “deemed suspension” followed by release from custody.
The Bench also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Dipak Mali ((2010) 2 SCC 222), which established that:
“…the review for modification or revocation of the order of suspension was 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), 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.”
Decision
Finding no merit in the arguments presented by the Union of India, the High Court dismissed the petition along with the pending application. The decision effectively affirms the Tribunal’s order quashing the suspension and its subsequent extensions.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Union of India v. Gali Sreedhar
- Case Number: W.P.(C) 19586/2025 & CM APPL. 81890/2025
- Coram: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain
- Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Siddhartha Shankar Ray, CGSC with Mr. Atishay Jain, Advocate
- Counsel for Respondent: Dr. B. T. Kaul, Mr. U. D. Bhargava, and Mr. Pranjal Jaiswal, Advocates
