Allowed
Manoj Kumar M. through A.R Ashish Dubey v. Union of India and Ors.
Delhi HCW.P.(C)/11448/2025
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
11448/2025 & W.P.(C) 11477/2025 Page 1 of 7…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~93 & 94
MANOJ KUMAR M. THROUGH A.R ASHISH DUBEY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr Rohit Bhagat, Ms. Anum Hussain, Ms. Yamini Singh, Mr. Pragyesh Pratap Singh, Ms. Aprajita, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Ms. Ramanpreet Kaur, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC with Mr. Anis, GP
Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, JD (Admn), Sub. Ram Niwas and UDC Rameshwar Lal
ARUN KUMAR SEMWAL THROUGH A.R ASHISH DUBEY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr Rohit Bhagat, Ms. Anum Hussain, Ms. Yamini Singh, Mr. Pragyesh Pratap Singh, Ms. Aprajita, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Ms. Ramanpreet Kaur, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ranjeev Khatana, SPC with Mr. Ram Niwas, BRO and Mr. Naveen Bharadwaj, GREF, BRO Mr. Rajat Rajoria Singh, GP
Signature Not Ver ified
W.P.(C) 11448/2025 & W.P.(C) 11477/2025 Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.09.2025 15:06:04
Page 1 of 7
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 09.09.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are disposing of these writ petitions on a very limited ground. The facts are identical. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the facts in WP (C) 11448/2025.
2. By order dated 28 February 2025, the petitioner was placed under suspension under Rule 10(1)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 19651 on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him.
3. Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules requires every order of suspension to be reviewed every 90 days, upto the maximum period of 270 days.
4. It is also trite in law that an extension which is on grounds which are legally unsustainable would have to be set aside and would result in extinguishing of the order of suspension on that day.
5. The very first extension of the petitioners order of suspension
1 “CCS ( CCA ) Rules” hereinafter
Signature Not Ver ified
W.P.(C) 11448/2025 & W.P.(C) 11477/2025 Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.09.2025 15:06:04
Page 2 of 7
which was on 27 May 2025, read thus:
“1 Whereas, a disciplinary proceedings against Shri Manoj Kumar M, JE (Civ) (GS-184943W) of HQ GE (P) Yojak is contemplated for Misconduct committed while posted with 80 RCC/755 BRTF under Project Swastik.
2 Whereas, an Order placing Shri Manoj Kumar M, JE (Civ) (GS-184943W) under suspension wef 28 Feb 2025 until further orders was issued in exercise of powers conferred by sub rule 1 (a) of Rule 10 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 vide DGBR Order No.17008/DGBR/1690/03/E1E dated 28 Feb 2025. The suspension period of 90 days will expire on 28 May 2025.
3 Now, therefore, the Competent Authority in exercise of the powers conferred by sub rule (6) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, hereby directs to continue the suspension of the said Shri Manoj Kumar M, JE (Civ) (G8-184943W) for a further period of 90 days wef 29 May 2025 to 26 Aug 2025 as disciplinary action is pending against Shri Manoj Kumar M, JE (Civ) (GS-184943W).
4 Now, therefore, the Competent Authority in exercise of powers conferred by FR 53 hereby permits the said Shri Manoi Kumar M, JE (CI) (GS-184943W) to continue to claim/draw subsistence allowance @50% of pay during this suspension period.
5 The amount of subsistence allowance shall be regulated in terms of provisions contained in sub rule (ii) (a) of Rule (1) of FR 53, subject to the condition that he has not been engaged in any employment, business, profession or vocation during the period to which the claim relates, as contained in Government of India's Order No. 3 (b) below ibid Rule.
6 It is further ordered that during the period, this order enforces that the Headquarters of Shri Manoj Kumar M, JE (Civ) (GS-184943W) of HQ CE (P) Yojak shall be HQ CE (P) Yojak and the said Shri Manoj Kumar M, JE (Civ) (GS-184943W) shall not leave the said Headquarters without obtaining the prior permission of the undersigned.”
(Emphasis supplied)
6. This was followed by a further order of suspension on 22 August 2025 which was identical in terms.
Signature Not Ver ified
W.P.(C) 11448/2025 & W.P.(C) 11477/2025 Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.09.2025 15:06:04
Page 3 of 7
7. Thus, the orders of 27 May 2025 and 22 August 2025 extended the petitioner’s suspension for the second period of 90 days and the third period of 90 days on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were pending against him . It is also an admitted position that, till date, no charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner.
8. Mr. Haseeb, learned CGSC submits that the issuance of chargesheet is imminent and is presently seeking approval of the CVC.
9. Be that as it may, it is settled in law that disciplinary proceedings commence only with issuance of charge-sheet. The following passage from Union of India v Anil Kumar Sarkar2 makes this clear:
“19. In Coal India Ltd. v Saroj Kumar Mishra3 this Court, in AIR para 22, has held that:
“18. A departmental proceeding is ordinarily said to be initiated only when a charge-sheet is issued.”
20 . In Coal India Ltd. v Ananta Saha4 this Court held as under:
“27. There can be no quarrel with the settled legal proposition that the disciplinary proceedings commence only when a charge-sheet is issued to the delinquent employee.5 ”
21 . We also reiterate that the disciplinary proceedings commence only when a charge-sheet is issued. Departmental proceeding is normally said to be initiated only when a charge-
2 (2013) 4 SCC 161
3 AIR 2007 SC 1706
4 (2011) 5 SCC 142
5 Union of India v K.V. Jankiraman , (1991) 4 SCC 109 and UCO Bank v Rajinder Lal Capoor, (2007) 6 SCC 694
Signature Not Ver ified
W.P.(C) 11448/2025 & W.P.(C) 11477/2025 Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.09.2025 15:06:04
Page 4 of 7
sheet is issued.”
10. It is also apparent from Rule 14(3) and 14(4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
11. As such, the ground on which the suspension was extended on the second period of 90 days and the third period of 90 days was erroneous, as there were no disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner at that point of time.
12. Though Mr. Haseeb submits that the original ground on which the petitioner had been placed under suspension, which was that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against petitioner continues to apply, the extension of suspension was not on the ground that disciplinary proceedings continued to remain contemplated, but that they were pending, which is incorrect.
13. Even if this was an inadvertent error, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit thereof. The legality of any executive action is to be tested on the reasons adduced therefor. This has been the law since Commissioner of Police v Gordhandas Bhanji6 , as cited in the following famous passage from Mohinder Singh Gill v Chief Election Commissioner7 :
“8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the
6 AIR 1952 SC 16
7 ( 1978 ) 1 SCC 405
Signature Not Ver ified
W.P.(C) 11448/2025 & W.P.(C) 11477/2025 Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.09.2025 15:06:04
Page 5 of 7
time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji :
“Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.”
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.”
14. As such, solely on the ground that first and second extensions of suspension were on an a plainly factually erroneous ground, we are constrained to set aside the orders dated 27 May 2025 and 22 August 2025 whereby the petitioner’s suspension was extended beyond 90 days. Consequences in law would follow. The petitioner would be entitled, therefore, to be reinstated in service.
15. This would, however, not preclude the respondent from taking action against the petitioner in accordance with law, including by way of suspension if deemed appropriate.
16. Needless to say, should the petitioner being aggrieved by any such action which may be taken, the petitioner’s right in law shall remain reserved.
17. Mr. Singhdev points out that the petitioner’s application for leave is pending with the respondents. We say nothing thereon. It would be for the respondents to take a decision on the application.
Signature Not Ver ified
W.P.(C) 11448/2025 & W.P.(C) 11477/2025 Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.09.2025 15:06:04
Page 6 of 7
18. The petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
SEPTEMBER 9, 2025/ AT
Signature Not Ver ified
W.P.(C) 11448/2025 & W.P.(C) 11477/2025 Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:11.09.2025 15:06:04
Page 7 of 7
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v Anil Kumar SarkarRelied on¶9
(2013) 4 SCC 161 · Who else cites this
Coal India Ltd. v Saroj Kumar MishraRelied on¶9
AIR 2007 SC 1706 · Who else cites this
Coal India Ltd. v Ananta SahaRelied on¶9
(2011) 5 SCC 142 · Who else cites this
Commissioner of Police v Gordhandas BhanjiRelied on¶13
AIR 1952 SC 16 · Who else cites this
Mohinder Singh Gill v Chief Election CommissionerRelied on¶13
(1978) 1 SCC 405 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Manoj Kumar M through A.R Ashish Dubey
Union of India and Ors
Arun Kumar Semwal through A.R Ashish Dubey
C. Hari Shankar
Om Prakash Shukla
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court