Periodic suspension review and no indefinite suspension without charge-sheet led to quashing of the employee's continued suspension.

Periodic suspension review under service rules must be undertaken by the competent authority and communicated to the employee; a mere file noting is insufficient. The court also treated the anti-protraction principle in Ajay Kumar Choudhary as applicable beyond the CCS (CCA) Rules, so suspension should not continue indefinitely where no charge-sheet has been served and no departmental proceedings have begun. On these grounds, the suspension and later rejection orders were quashed, reinstatement followed, and the treatment of the suspension period was left to be decided within six months.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner's suspension could be continued without a valid six-monthly review by the competent authority and communication of the decision; (ii) whether the principle in Ajay Kumar Choudhary governed suspension under the NTPC Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977 and prevented continuation of suspension in the absence of a charge-sheet.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's suspension could be continued without a valid six-monthly review by the competent authority and communication of the decision.

Analysis: The appointment terms made the NTPC CDA Rules applicable mutatis mutandis and identified the President of India as the disciplinary authority. Under Rule 20(3), suspension of an employee had to be reviewed every six months by the competent authority, namely the authority that had imposed the suspension or a higher authority. The Court held that a mere file noting did not satisfy this requirement, and that the employee had to be informed of the result of the review, even if a separate formal order continuing suspension was not necessary.

Conclusion: The suspension was not validly reviewed or continued in accordance with Rule 20(3), and the petitioner succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the principle in Ajay Kumar Choudhary governed suspension under the NTPC Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977 and prevented continuation of suspension in the absence of a charge-sheet.

Analysis: The Court held that the principle against protracted suspension was not confined to the CCS (CCA) Rules. It treated the Supreme Court's directions as a general proposition that suspension should not be allowed to continue indefinitely, especially where no charge-sheet had been served and no departmental proceedings had been initiated. The later decisions relied on by the respondents were distinguished on the basis that they involved timely review and extension orders, which were absent here.

Conclusion: The petitioner could not be kept under suspension indefinitely in the absence of a charge-sheet and valid periodic review, and this issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The impugned suspension and subsequent rejection orders were quashed, and reinstatement in service followed, with a further direction to decide the treatment of the suspension period within six months.

Ratio Decidendi: Where service rules require periodic review of suspension by the competent authority, continuation of suspension is invalid unless that review is duly undertaken and communicated; moreover, suspension cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely in the absence of a charge-sheet or departmental proceedings.

---