Suspension extension must rest on cogent reasons, and prolonged administrative suspension cannot continue without real justification.

Extension of suspension under Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 must rest on contemporaneous, cogent reasons and cannot continue mechanically or indefinitely. The court held that prolonged suspension was unjustified where the employees had been moved away from the place of allegations, the investigation had substantially progressed in one matter, the criminal case had reached charge-sheet stage in another, and departmental proceedings had shown little progress. The reasons recorded for continuing suspension were insufficient on the facts, and unequal treatment of similarly placed officers was also unwarranted. The Tribunal's interference with the extensions was upheld in substance, subject to a limited modification of the effective cessation date.

---

---

Issues: Whether the continued extension of suspension of the government servants beyond the initial period was justified under the applicable suspension rules and whether the Tribunal was correct in quashing the extensions.

Analysis: Suspension under Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 is not to be continued mechanically or indefinitely. The power of extension under Rule 10(6) must rest on contemporaneous, cogent, and justifiable reasons and is subject to judicial review on recognised grounds. The record showed that in both matters the employees had been shifted away from the place where the allegations arose, the investigation in one matter had substantially progressed, and in the other the criminal case had reached the stage of filing of charge-sheet, while departmental proceedings had either not commenced or remained pending without meaningful progress. The reasons recorded for continuation of suspension were held to be insufficient in the overall facts, and the differential treatment in one case, as compared with similarly placed officers, was also found unjustified.

Conclusion: The continued suspension was not justified on the facts, and the Tribunal was substantially correct in interfering with the extensions. The writ petitioners obtained only a limited modification as to the effective date from which the suspension was to be treated as having ceased.

Final Conclusion: The common order of the Tribunal was upheld in substance, but its final directions were modified to the limited extent relating to the treatment of the suspension period and the writ applications were disposed of with partial success for the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: Extension of suspension under Rule 10(6) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 must be supported by contemporaneous, cogent reasons and cannot be sustained where prolonged suspension becomes unjustified in the absence of material showing a real risk of interference with inquiry or investigation.

---