Suspension beyond 90 days may continue where allegations and administrative necessity justify it, with representation to be decided promptly.

A suspension following detention in a criminal case attracted deemed suspension under Rule 10(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, and its continuation beyond 90 days was upheld under Rule 10(6) because the department retained discretion to assess the gravity of allegations and administrative necessity. The Tribunal held that Ajay Kumar Choudhary did not create an automatic lapse of suspension after 90 days in every case, particularly where arrest by CBI and pending factual developments could affect departmental action. It declined to interfere with the suspension or its extension, but directed the respondents to decide the applicant's representation within four weeks.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of suspension and the order extending suspension were liable to be interfered with on the ground that the suspension had continued beyond 90 days and whether the respondents were required to decide the applicant's representation seeking reinstatement and enhancement of subsistence allowance.

Analysis: The applicant was placed under suspension after being detained in a criminal case, attracting deemed suspension under Rule 10(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The extension of suspension was made under the power to continue suspension beyond 90 days under Rule 10(6). The Tribunal noted that the rule in Ajay Kumar Choudhary was not to be treated as establishing an automatic lapse of suspension in every case after 90 days, and that the present case involved arrest by CBI and pending factual developments relevant to any departmental action. It held that continuation of suspension depended upon the department's assessment of the gravity of allegations and administrative necessity.

Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to interfere with the suspension and its extension, but directed the respondents to decide the applicant's representation within four weeks.

---