1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief(s):

                   “(a) The present writ petition may kindly be allowed by quashing orders dated 18.01.2025, 25.02.2025, 16.07.2025, 23.08.2025 & 20.11.2025 being contrary to law; (b) Further, r..s may also kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner from 29.11.2024 and to treat the period of suspension from 29.11.2024 and onwards as duty period for all purposes (pay, increment, pension, ACPS etc.); (c) Furthermore, respondents may also kindly be directed to draw & disburse the full pay to the petitioner for the period 29.11.2024 and onwards along with interest and”

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that the petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Professor (Dance Kathak) in Education Department was placed under suspension vide order dated 31.8.2024 (Annexure P-1) under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter, ‘Rules’), in view of disciplinary proceedings contemplated against him, on account of complaint filed by girl students of JLNGC of Fine Art, Loharah, Shimla. Subsequently, the petitioner came to be issued charge sheet under Rule 14 of the Rules and at present, departmental enquiry is underway against the petitioner.

3. In nutshell, grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vishwa Bhushan and Ms. Anuja Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that though, in terms of rule 10(6) of the Rules, suspension is required to be reviewed after 90 days, in case of petitioner, suspension order was not reviewed within the statutory period of 90 days, as such, suspension of the petitioner, done vide order dated 31.8.2024, deserves to be revoked.

4. It emerges from the pleadings adduced on record by parties that for the period from 29.11.2024 to 17.11.2024, petitioner remained under suspension, without any statutory review of suspension. However, vide office order dated 18.1.2025, disciplinary authority reviewed the suspension and extended the same from 28.11.2024 to 26.2.2025, thereafter again on 26.2.2025, from 26.2.2025 to 26.5.2025, thereafter on 16.7.2025, from 26.5.2025 to 24.8.2025, on 23.8.2025 from 24.8.2025 to 21.11.2025 and finally on 20.11.2025, from 22.11.2025 to 22.2.2026.

5. Though, careful perusal of facts, noted above, suggests that with effect from 29.11.2024, repeatedly, suspension order dated 31.8.2024, passed against the petitioner, came to be reviewed, after every 90 days, but the question, which requires consideration in the case at hand, is, ‘whether initial suspension order dated 31.8.2024, which was otherwise required to be reviewed after expiry of 90 days i.e. on or before 28.11.2024, could have been reviewed vide order dated 18.1.2025 or not?’

6. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of sub-rules (6) and (7) of rule-10 of the Rules, which read as under:

                   “10. Suspension-

                   (6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of ninety days from the effective date of suspension, on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time.

                   (7) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days.”

7. Careful perusal of aforesaid rule clearly shows that suspension order is required to be reviewed on or before expiry of 90 days of effective date on the recommendation of Review Committee constituted for the purpose, failing which suspension order made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) shall not be valid.

8. Admittedly, in the case at hand ,suspension order, at first instance, suspension order was issued on 31.8.2024, meaning thereby the same was necessarily required to be reviewed on or before 28.11.2024. Admittedly, in the case at hand, no steps were ever initiated by the Disciplinary Authority to review the suspension order from 28.11.2024 to 17.11.2025, rather, for the first time, suspension was reviewed vide order dated 18.1.2025 i.e. beyond the statutory period of 90 days.

9. Though, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that the delay, if any, in reviewing the suspension order stands condoned, on account of issuance of fresh order dated 18.1.2025, because, at that juncture, no objection, if any was ever raised by the petitioner, rather, he, without protest, accepted orders dated 18.1.2025, 25.2.2025, 26.5.2025, 16.7.2025, 23.8.2025 and 20.11.2025, whereby repeatedly, suspension order came to be reviewed, after interval of 90 days. However, this Court, having carefully perused rule 10(6) of the Rules, is not impressed with aforesaid submission of Mr. Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, for the reason that since suspension order dated 31.8.2024 was not reviewed after expiry of 90 days i.e. on or before 28.11.2024, it lost its efficacy and rule 10(7) of the rules, clearly provides that order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) or (2) of the Rules, shall not be valid, after expiry of 90 days, unless extended after review for further period, before expiry of 90 days.

10. Admittedly, in the case at hand, suspension order dated 31.8.2024, expired on 28.11.2024, and thereafter, the same was not reviewed with effect from 29.11.2024 to 17.1.2025, as a result thereof, suspension order lost its efficacy. Subsequent orders dated 18.1.2025, 25.2.2025, 26.5.2025, 16.7.2025, 23.8.2025 and 20.11.2025, thereby reviewing suspension order dated 31.8.2024 are of no consequence. Since, inaction on the part of Disciplinary Authority to review order dated 31.8.2024, after a period of 90 days i.e. 28.11.2024, has rendered the suspension of the petitioner invalid, in terms of sub-rules (6) and (7) of rule-10 of the Rules, there was no occasion for the respondents to pass review orders ,which admittedly came to be passed after more than three months from the date of expiry of suspension order.

11. Reliance is placed upon judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and others v. Dipak Mali, (2010) 2 SCC 222, relevant paras whereof read as under:

                   “10. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and having also considered the relevant dates relating to suspension of the Respondent and when the Petitioner’s case came up for review on 20th October, 2004, we are inclined to agree with the views expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, as confirmed by the High Court, that having regard to the amended provisions of Sub- rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10, 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.

                   11. In this case, what is important is that by operating of subrule (6) of Rule 10 of the 1965 Rules, the order of suspension would not survive after the period of 90 days unless it was extended after review. Since admittedly the review had not been conducted within 90 days from the date of suspension, it became invalid after 90 days, since neither was there any review, nor extension within said period of 90 days. Subsequent review and extension, in our view, could not revive the order which had already become invalid after the expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension.”

12. Reliance is also placed upon a judgment rendered by High Court of Delhi in Union of India & Ors. v. Sh. U.S.P. Kushwaha, W.P.(C) 12263/2025, decided on 14.8.2025, relevant paras whereof read as under:

                   “12. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

                   13. The respondent was initially placed under suspension by an Order dated 11.01.2023 with effect from 29.12.2022. Before the expiry of the period of 90 days, however, he was released on bail by an Order dated 10.02.2023, and the fact of his release was communicated to the petitioners on 12.02.2023, that is, again before the expiry of the 90 days period. 14. Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules reads as under:

                   “(7) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days. Provided that no such review of suspension shall be necessary in the case of deemed suspension under sub-rule (2), if the Government servant continues to be under detention at the time of completion of ninety days of suspension and the ninety days period in such case will count from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released from detention or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later.” (Emphasis supplied)

                   15. Interpreting the above Rule, this Court in Akil Ahmad (supra) has held as under: “

                   11. 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.

                   12. In the present case, the respondent had been released from custody/detention prior to the expiry of the initial 90 days of his deemed suspension and the information of his release was also communicated to the Competent Authority prior to the expiry of the same period. Therefore, the proviso cannot come to the aid of the petitioners. The Order dated 18.04.2022, having being passed after the expiry of 90-days from the initial suspension/deemed suspension, was clearly beyond the prescribed time, and has rightly been quashed by the learned Tribunal.”

                   16. As far as Deepaindra Kumar (supra) is concerned, this Court while interpreting Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, again observed as under:

                   “ 8. The implication and the mandate of the proviso to sub-rule (7) of the Rule is that, if the government servant, on deemed suspension, continues to remain under detention for a period of 90 days or more, no review is required within a period of 90 days. Secondly, in such cases, the date of release from detention, or the date of release from detention when intimated to the appointing authority, whichever is later, is the starting point for counting the period of 90 days in sub-Rule (7) to Rule 10.......”

                   17. In view of the above, since in the present case the petitioners have reviewed the initial suspension order of the respondent beyond the period of the 90 days of the initial suspension, the same cannot be sustained in terms of Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules.”

13. In the aforesaid judgments, it came to be ruled that 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.

14. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid position of law and facts of present case, the petition is allowed. Suspension of the petitioner done vide order dated 31.8.2024 and thereafter extended vide various office orders is held to be invalid and set aside. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with retrospective effect, from 29.11.2024, with the observation that period of suspension with effect from 29.11.2024, shall be regulated as per rules occupying the field.

The petition is disposed of in the afore terms. All pending applications stand disposed of.