Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Safiul Alam vs Posts on 5 January, 2026
1 O.A. 529 of 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
O.A. 350/529/2025 Date of Hearing: 26.11.2025
Date of Order: 05.01.2026
Coram : Hon'ble Smt. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member
SAFIUL ALAM, son of Firoj Alam, aged about 34
years, working as Office Assistant office of the
Superintendent of Posts, Birbhum Division, Suri,
Birbhum, Pin - 731101 and residing at Village -
Lalkuthi para, Post Office and Police Station - Suri,
District - Birbhum, West Bengal, PIN - 731101.
(M): 9475582610, Email Id: [email protected]
....... Applicant.
-versus-
1. Union of India, service through Secretary,
Ministry of Communications (Department of
Posts), Government of India, having office at Dak
Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Chief Post Master General, West Bengal
Circle, Yogayog Bhawan, Chittaranjan Avenue,
Kolkata - 700012.
3. The Post Master General, Kolkata Region,
Yogayog Bhawan, Kolkata - 700012.
4. The Director of Postal Service, Kolkata Region,
Yogayog Bhawan, Kolkata - 700012.
5. The Assistant Director of Postal Services-II,
office of the Post Master General, Kolkata Region,
Yogayog Bhawan, Kolkata - 700012.
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone=
Dhrubajyoti banerjee
90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal,
SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.01.05 15:43:28+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2 O.A. 529 of 2025
6. Superintendent of Post Offices, Birbhum
Division, Suri, District - Birbhum, West Bengal, PIN
- 731101.
...... Respondents.
For the Applicants : Mr. B. Chatterjee; Counsel
For the Respondents : Ms. D. Das Banerjee; Counsel
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member :
1. The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, praying for the following relief(s):
"(a) An order be passed quashing and/or setting aside the order of suspension dated 17.07.2020 issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices vide a memo no. F/Suri H.O./NREGA/Fraud/Misc.
(b) An order be passed quashing and/or setting aside the speaking and/or reasoned order dated 20.02.2025, passed by the Director of Postal Services, Kolkata region vide memo no.
PMG(KR)/Vig/Rev/Sus/14/S.Alam.
(c) An order be passed directing the respondent authorities concerned, to disburse balance salary of the petitioner for the period spent in suspension on and from 17.07.2020 to 03.03.2021.
(d) An order to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 03.02.2022 passed by the authority.
(e) An order be passed directing the respondent authorities concerned to reinstate the applicant to regular service at a less sensitive post, in view of the long period spent under suspension and regularised the period of suspension for all purpose along with all consequential service benefits."
2. Facts as narrated by the applicant in the O.A are as follows:
The applicant joined as Postal Assistant on 24.01.2011 under the Department of Posts, Birbhum Division. The applicant was served with an order of suspension on 17.07.2020. The same has been reviewed on numerous occasions and the same Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.05 15:43:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
3 O.A. 529 of 2025 remains in subsistence till date vide extensions issued from time to time. Three days after issuance of the first order of suspension, Suri Police Station Case No. 196 of 2020 was registered against the applicant on the basis of a complaint lodged by the then Superintendent of Post Office (Birbhum Division) wherein, it was alleged that the applicant had committed offences punishable under Sections 409, 417, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The crux of the allegation centred around the alleged involvement of the petitioner in the misappropriation of funds sanctioned in relation to Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme by misusing his role as the person responsible for transfer of funds to the respective beneficiaries. In relation to the aforementioned Suri Police Station Case No. 196 of 2020, charge sheet had been filed on 08.04.2021 under Sections 403, 406, 409 and 417 of the IPC read with Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act 2000. A supplementary charge sheet had also been filed on 25.04.2022. Charges were framed on 06.12.2021. The applicant was taken into custody on 03.03.2021 upon surrender before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Birbhum. Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta allowed bail to the applicant subject to certain conditions vide an order dated 07.10.2024. Within a month of being released on bail, the applicant made a written representation on 11.11.2024 before the respondent authorities praying for revocation of the suspension order dated 17.07.2020. A further representation dated 08.01.2025 was also made as a reminder but to no avail. Upon being aggrieved by the continued subsistence of the order of suspension dated 17.07.2020 without initiation of disciplinary proceeding, the applicant filed an original application being O.A. No. 350/00068/2025, praying for an order to revoke/set aside/quash the order of suspension. The original application was disposed of by this Tribunal by an order dated 30.01.2025, directing the respondent authorities to treat the Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.05 15:43:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 O.A. 529 of 2025 original application as part of the applicant's representation dated 11.11.2024 and to dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks. A charge sheet dated 06.01.2025 was issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Birbhum Division, Suri, Birbhum. Pursuant to the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, a reasoned order dated 20.02.2025 has been issued by the Director of Postal Services, Kolkata Region wherein the applicant's prayer for revocation of the order of suspension has been turned down. Hence this O.A.
3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant filed another Original Application praying inter alia for payment of Subsistence Allowance for the period from 17.07.2020 to 02.03.2021 and same was registered as O.A. No. 1908/2024. Vide order dated 28.01.2025, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application with a liberty to the applicant to approach the authority by way of filing representation. Thereafter as per liberty given by the Tribunal, applicant submitted his representation on 08.02.2025 with a prayer for payment of subsistence allowance for the period from 17.07.2020 to 02.03.2021 but the same has not been considered by the authority till date. The applicant made further representation on 20.03.2025 for payment of subsistence allowance.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that in issuing the reasoned order dated 20.02.2025, the Director of Postal Services failed to consider that the original order of suspension dated 17.07.2020 had been erroneously issued on the ground that a disciplinary proceeding was pending against the applicant as on date of issuance of the same whereas the fact is that disciplinary proceedings had not commenced at least until 5 years later, when the charge sheet had been finally issued on 06.01.2025. In other words, the power to suspend under Rule 10 Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.05 15:43:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 O.A. 529 of 2025 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 had been invoked on the erroneous ground of pendency of disciplinary proceeding and as such, the same is void ab initio and suffers from lack of application of mind. Since none of the contingencies including contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, as enumerated under Rule 10(1) existed as on date of issuance of the order of suspension dated 17.07.2020, the issuance of the same amounts to an exercise beyond the powers vested in the respondent authorities concerned by the said Rule.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant further submits that the Director of Postal Services has surreptitiously attempted to modify the original order of suspension dated 17.07.2020 by stating in the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 that the said suspension was issued since 'disciplinary proceedings was contemplated against Safiul Alam' whereas pendency of disciplinary proceeding has been mentioned as the reason for suspension in the order of suspension dated 17.07.2020. Such conduct on the part of the Director of Postal Services reeks of official bias and arbitrariness and is contrary to the principles of fair play.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that until 03.03.2021 i.e. the date on which the applicant had been taken into custody, the question of deemed suspension under Rule 10(2)(a) of the Rules of 1965 did not arise till such time the applicant had been lodged in custody. During this time, no disciplinary proceeding had commenced and/or was contemplated. For the period between 17.07.2020 and 03.03.2021, the respondent authorities concerned had no justification in law, to suspend the applicant. The applicant is therefore entitled to receive the balance salary for the period between 17.07.2020 and 03.03.2021, a period spent on suspension erroneously ordered by the respondent authorities. The applicant Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.05 15:43:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 O.A. 529 of 2025 has been released from custody, months prior on 2024 and currently, a charge sheet issued on 06.01.2025 is pending enquiry. In the said conspectus, the applicant ought to be transferred and reinstated to a non-sensitive post, so as to be able to draw a regular salary.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that a prolonged period of suspension, in this case, for almost 5 years, is tantamount to a violation of the right to live with dignity, which attaches to every human being as a human right and stands protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that this is a case of misappropriation of Government money by fraudulently crediting amounts to various accounts. The total amount of misappropriation in this case is Rs. 1,01,02,187/-. The applicant was identified as principal offender in this case. An FIR was lodged against the applicant at Suri PS on 20.07.2020 and another FIR was lodged against him on 21.07.2020. Court case is running at the Ld. Court of District Sessions Court, Bibhum, Suri. The applicant has been released from jail custody on bail bond by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court vide order dated 07.10.2024. The date of last review of suspension is 04.08.2025. Disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the applicant under Rule-14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide memo dated 06.01.2025.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the suspension order dated 17.07.2020 was not issued solely on the ground that a disciplinary proceeding was pending. It was issued in view of the serious and prima facie substantiated allegations of large scale financial misappropriation of Government funds, amounting to over Rs.1 crore, involving fraudulent transactions and unauthorized use of official credentials. Rule 10(1)(b) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 empowers the Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.05 15:43:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 O.A. 529 of 2025 competent authority to place a Government servant under suspension if a case against him in respect of a criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial.
In the instant case, the petitioner was named in two FIRs dated 20.07.2020 and 21.07.2020 registered at Suri Police Station. He was subsequently arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The court case is currently sub judice in the Ld. District Sessions Court, Birbhum. Even though formal disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 commenced with the issuance of the charge sheet on 06.01.2025, criminal proceedings were already in motion since July 2020. Thus, the suspension order dated 17.07.2020 was well within the scope of Rule 10(1)(b) and in accordance with extant legal and administrative provisions.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents reiterates that suspension is not a penalty, but an administrative measure to ensure fair inquiry, prevent tampering with evidence, and safeguard institutional integrity, especially when serious charges involving public money and systemic manipulation are involved.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the reasoned order dated 20.02.2025, issued upon periodic review as per Rule 10(6) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, has adequately considered the on-going judicial trial, the gravity of charges, and the status of the petitioner and has been passed after due deliberation by the competent authority.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the order of suspension dated 17.07.2020 was not issued under the provision of Rule 10 (2) (a) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which relates to deemed suspension upon detention. Rather, the said order was issued under Rule 10(1)(b) based on the serious and credible allegations of grave misconduct involving misappropriation of Government funds amounting to tune of over Rs. 1 Crore. The decision was taken on administrative Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.05 15:43:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 O.A. 529 of 2025 grounds after due application of mind considering the gravity of these offence, initiation of criminal proceedings by registration of two FIRs and to ensure that the official does not influence or tamper with evidence while continuing in service.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that as per F.R. 53 (2) the suspended official is not entitled to be paid the subsistence allowance unless the said official furnishes a certificate that he is not engaged in any other employment, Business, Profession or vocation. Safiul Alam did not submit any non-employment certificate to the competent authority and therefore, the subsistence allowance for the period between 17.07.2020 and 03.03.2021 was not paid. The applicant was released on bail bond. The suspension Review committee after due consideration, had extended the suspension for another 180 days w.e.f. 19.02.2025, having found sufficient justification in view of the gravity of charges and on-going criminal trial at District Sessions Court, Birbhum. Therefore, his claim for reinstatement at this stage is untenable, and the subsistence allowance is being paid as per FR 53, subject to cooperation with inquiry and fulfilment of relevant conditions.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the right to live with dignity under Article 21 must be balanced, against the interest of administrative discipline, integrity of public service, and safeguarding public funds, the extended suspension of the petitioner is not a violation of constitutional rights, but a lawful administrative measure taken in accordance with service rules and in public interest.
5. Heard the parties. Perused material on record.
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.05 15:43:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 O.A. 529 of 2025
6. The applicant has challenged his continued suspension after 17.07.2020. He has challenged the letter dated 17.07.2020 placing him under suspension on the ground that it is factually wrong. Letter dated 17.07.2020 is reproduced below:
"WHEREAS a Disciplinary proceeding against Safiul Alam, Office Assistant, Divisional Office, Suri is pending.
Now, therefore, the undersigned in exercise of power conferred by Sub Rule-(1) of Rule-10 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 hereby placed said Safiul Alam, Office Assistant, Divisional Office, Suri under suspension with effect from the date of issue of this memo.
It is further ordered that during the period that this order shall remain in force, the Head Quarter of Safiul Alam should be Suri and said Safiul Alam shall not leave the Head Quarter without obtaining prior permission of the undersigned."
Admittedly, disciplinary proceeding against the applicant was not pending on the date of issue of this letter. It is, however, a fact that a financial fraud of considerable proportion was detected in which the applicant was identified as the primary offender. His suspension in administrative interest immediately after detection of the fraud and identification of his role in it, was imperative. Use of an inaccurate phrase, viz. pending disciplinary proceedings, does not take away the seriousness of the crime nor does it render the suspension order void. The choice of the inaccurate phrase can at best be put down to the deficiency in linguistic skills of the authority issuing the letter and his lack of knowledge of legal implications of such inaccuracy. It is an unfortunate but unintentional lapse which deserves to be overlooked considering the circumstances. It is therefore held that the suspension of the applicant ordered vide letter dated 17.07.2020 is valid.
7. It is settled law reiterated by DOP&T OM dated 23/08/2016 that departmental proceedings are to be initiated within 90 days of placing an employee under suspension by issuing a charge memorandum to the employee. This was not done for reasons best known to the respondent authorities. They, instead, based on the recommendations of the review committee, extended the Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.05 15:43:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 O.A. 529 of 2025 period of suspension vide their letter dated 15/10/2020 without initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. Since the charge memorandum was not issued within 90 days of placing the applicant under suspension on 17.07.2020, his suspension beyond 15.10.2020, i.e. 90 days after 17.07.2020 is invalid.
8. The applicant was taken into custody on 03.01.2021 and remained in judicial custody till 08.10.2024. As per rules this period between 03.01.2021 and 08.10.2024 is to be reckoned as deemed suspension.
The applicant was released from custody on bail granted by the Hon'ble High Court on 08.10.2024. He communicated the fact of his release to the authorities on 10/10/2024 and 11/11/2024. A charge memorandum was issued to him on 06.01.2025. His suspension was extended vide order dated 17.02.2025.
Rules 10(6) and 10(7) of the CCS(CCA) Rules are reproduced below:
(emphasis supplied) "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. 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 and in such case the ninety days' period shall be computed 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: Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.05 15:43:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 O.A. 529 of 2025 Provided further that in a case where no charge-sheet is issued under these rules, the total period under suspension or deemed suspension, as the case may be, including any extended period in terms of sub-rule (6) shall not exceed,-
(a) two hundred seventy days from the date of order of suspension, if the Government servant is placed under suspension in terms of Clause
(a) of sub-rule (1); or
(b) two years from the date of order of suspension, if the Government servant is placed under suspension in terms of Clause (aa) or Clause (b) of sub-rule (1), as the case may be; or
(c) two years from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later, in the case of deemed suspension under sub-rule (2)."
Underlined parts of the above quoted rule deal with extension of suspension of an employee released on bail. It says that the suspension is to be reviewed within 90 days of the person being released on bail or the date on which the communication with respect to his release on bail is received by the authorities. After his release on bail on 08/10/2024, as per material on record, the applicant sent an intimation regarding the fact by email as well as by speed post on 10.10.2024. The speed post was received by the respondents on 13/10/2024. He again submitted a detailed representation on 11.11.2024 which contained information regarding his release on bail. This letter dated 11.11.2024 has been acknowledged by the Director of Postal Services in his speaking order dated 20/02/2025. The suspension should have been reviewed within 90 days of 13/10/2024, i.e. by 11/01/2025. It was reviewed on 17/02/2025. In the speaking order dated 20/02/2025, it has been stated that the charge memorandum was issued within 90 days of the applicant's release on bail. This is a wrong interpretation of the rule 10(7) of CCS (CCA) Rules as quoted above. This rule requires the review of suspension within 90 days of an employee's release on bail Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.05 15:43:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 O.A. 529 of 2025 or the date on which the fact of his release is communicated to the authorities whichever is later.
9. As has been observed above, applicant's deemed suspension was reviewed on 17.02.2025 much later than the 90 days from either his date of release on bail or the date of communication of the release order or even the applicant's representation dated 11.11.2024. Thus, extension of the applicant's suspension beyond 11/01/2025 is held to be invalid as it was not reviewed within 90 days of the receipt of communication informing the respondents of applicant's release on bail. Accordingly, all subsequent suspension extension orders are also held to be invalid. Respondents are directed to treat the period between 15.07.2020 and 03.01.2021 as well as period from 12/01/2025 to the date a copy of this order is received by them as having been spent on duty by the applicant and pay salary for these periods after adjusting subsistence allowance and any other allowance which may have been paid to him for the aforesaid periods within a period of 90 days from the date a copy of this order is received by them. Respondents are at liberty to act as per law qua the applicant for the period after the date of receipt of this order.
10. OA is disposed of with the directions given above. No costs.
(Suchitto Kumar Das) (Urmita Datta (Sen))
Member (A) Member (J)
DB
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.05 15:43:28+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0