Suspension

Suspension is the interim removal of a central government servant from the active duties of the post, ordered under Rule 10 of the CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, while a disciplinary inquiry or a criminal investigation against the servant is contemplated, pending or in progress. It is a holding measure, not a punishment. The suspended servant remains in service and keeps the lien on the post, but is kept away from official work and its records, and is paid a subsistence allowance in place of pay.

The single point that governs everything else about suspension is that it is not a penalty. The penalties that a disciplinary authority can impose are listed separately in Rule 11 of the same rules, and they run from censure to dismissal from service. Suspension appears in Rule 10, before the list of penalties, precisely because it is the state a servant is held in until the proceedings decide whether any penalty is warranted at all. A servant can be suspended and later fully exonerated, in which case the suspension leaves no mark on service and the full pay for the period is restored.

That interim character shapes the money, the timing, and the safeguards. Because it is not a penalty, suspension does not attract the inquiry that Article 311 of the Constitution demands before a servant is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank. Because it can otherwise run indefinitely and starve a servant of pay while no charge is even framed, both the rules and the Supreme Court have fenced it with time limits: a mandatory review before 90 days by a Review Committee, and the direction in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015) that a suspension should not outlast three months unless a memorandum of charges has been served.

This article sets out the grounds and the power to suspend under Rule 10, the two situations of deemed suspension on detention or conviction, who may pass a suspension order, the subsistence allowance under Fundamental Rule 53 with a worked example and a timeline table, the headquarters restriction and conduct expected during suspension, the review mechanism and the 90-day rule, revocation and reinstatement with the regulation of the intervening period under Fundamental Rules 54, 54-A and 54-B, how suspension differs sharply from the penalties in Rule 11, and the constitutional safeguards that surround the whole process.

Grounds and the power to suspend under Rule 10

Rule 10(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 empowers the appointing authority, any authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate, the disciplinary authority, or any other authority empowered by the President, to place a government servant under suspension. The rule does not require that the servant be guilty of anything; it requires only that one of three situations exists.

The first ground is that a disciplinary proceeding against the servant is contemplated or is pending. This is the ordinary case: an allegation of misconduct has surfaced, a departmental inquiry is on the way or already running, and the servant is suspended so that they cannot influence witnesses, tamper with records, or continue the conduct complained of while the case is decided. The second ground is that the servant is engaged in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State. The third ground is that a case against the servant in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial.

A suspension under any of these grounds is a decision of judgement, not an automatic consequence. The competent authority is expected to apply its mind to whether the presence of the servant on duty would prejudice the inquiry or the investigation, or whether the gravity of the alleged misconduct makes it unseemly for the servant to continue on the post. Departmental instructions consistently advise that suspension is not to be resorted to as a routine or as a mild punishment in itself, and that it should be considered where the alleged offence is grave, where there is a risk of the servant tampering with evidence or witnesses, or where the servant is charged with an offence involving moral turpitude, corruption, or a serious breach of conduct. The frequent categories are an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a case referred to or being pursued by the Central Vigilance Commission, or an act that would embarrass the administration if the servant continued in the chair.

Rule 10 applies to servants governed by the CCS (CCA) Rules. Members of the All India Services are suspended under the parallel All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, which carry an equivalent scheme, and several organised services and the Railways operate their own but closely matching rules. The principle across all of them is the same: suspension is an interim measure that precedes and does not replace the disciplinary or criminal process.

Deemed suspension under Rule 10(2)

Rule 10(2) creates two situations in which a servant is treated as suspended automatically, without the competent authority passing any separate order. These are the cases of deemed suspension, and they turn on a threshold of 48 hours.

The first is detention. A government servant is deemed to have been placed under suspension, by an order of the appointing authority, with effect from the date of detention, if the servant is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding 48 hours. The custody need not be on a criminal charge; detention under a preventive law counts. What matters is that the servant is held for more than 48 hours.

The second is conviction. A servant is deemed to have been placed under suspension with effect from the date of conviction if, on conviction for an offence, the servant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding 48 hours and is not immediately dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired as a consequence of the conviction. For this purpose, the 48 hours is computed from the beginning of the imprisonment after the conviction, and intermittent periods of imprisonment are added together to see whether the threshold is crossed.

Two features of deemed suspension are settled and are worth stating plainly. First, deemed suspension takes effect retrospectively from the date of detention or conviction, and it does not need a formal order to come into being, although the department records the fact administratively. Second, a deemed suspension is not confined to the actual period of detention. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajiv Kumar held that an order under Rule 10(2) is not restricted in its duration to the period of detention; it continues to operate until it is modified or revoked by the competent authority under the revocation provisions of Rule 10(5). A servant released from custody after a fortnight therefore does not walk back to the desk automatically; the deemed suspension continues until the authority revokes it.

A servant against whom a criminal case has been started but who is not actually in custody, for example one released on bail, is not under deemed suspension. Such a servant may still be placed under suspension by a positive order of the competent authority under Rule 10(1), on the ground that a criminal case is under investigation, inquiry or trial.

The suspension order and who can pass it

An order of suspension under Rule 10(1) is a written order that names the servant, states that the servant is placed under suspension with effect from a stated date, and identifies the ground, the pending or contemplated proceeding or the criminal case, in broad terms. It fixes the headquarters at which the servant is to remain during suspension. It does not need to set out the detailed allegations; those come later in the charge sheet or articles of charge if a formal inquiry follows.

The authorities that can suspend are set by Rule 10(1) read with the schedule of disciplinary authorities for the service and post: the appointing authority, any authority superior to it, the disciplinary authority, or an authority the President has empowered for the purpose. An authority subordinate to the appointing authority cannot suspend unless it has been specifically empowered. A suspension ordered by an authority lower than the one competent to order it is liable to be set aside as being without jurisdiction, which is one of the recurring grounds on which suspension orders are challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

An order of suspension is effective from the date it is made or from a later date specified in it; it cannot ordinarily be given retrospective effect, except in the deemed-suspension cases of Rule 10(2), where the rule itself fixes the effective date at the date of detention or conviction. Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement imposed on a servant is set aside on appeal or by a court and the case is remitted for a fresh inquiry, Rule 10(3) and Rule 10(4) provide that the servant is deemed to have been under suspension from the date of the original penalty and continues under suspension pending the further proceedings, unless the competent authority directs otherwise.

Subsistence allowance under Fundamental Rule 53

A servant under suspension is not on leave and is not on duty, and so is paid neither leave salary nor pay. Instead, Fundamental Rule 53 provides a subsistence allowance, a maintenance payment designed to keep the servant and the family from destitution while the proceedings run. The dedicated article on the subsistence allowance works through the rule in full; the essentials are set out here.

For the first three months of suspension, the subsistence allowance is an amount equal to the leave salary that the servant would have drawn had the servant been on leave on half pay, that is 50% of the pay drawn immediately before suspension, computed as for half pay leave. In addition, dearness allowance is payable on the amount of the subsistence allowance, at the rate in force. Compensatory allowances, most importantly house rent allowance, continue at the rates the servant was drawing before suspension, provided the competent authority is satisfied that the servant continues to incur the expenditure for which the allowance is given, for example that the servant continues to pay the house rent. The Children Education Allowance also continues during suspension, under the Department of Personnel and Training consolidated instructions in Office Memorandum No. A-27012/02/2017-Estt.(AL) dated 17 July 2018.

After the first three months, the rule requires the reviewing authority to look again at the rate and to revise it up or down, within limits, according to who is responsible for the delay. If the period of suspension has been prolonged for reasons not directly attributable to the servant, the authority may increase the subsistence allowance by up to 50% of the amount admissible during the first three months. If the period has been prolonged for reasons directly attributable to the servant, recorded in writing, the authority may reduce it by up to 50% of that amount. If neither applies, the first-three-months rate simply continues. Dearness allowance is then recomputed on the increased or decreased figure.

Two conditions gate the payment. Payment for any month is subject to the servant furnishing a certificate that the servant is not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation; this is the non-employment certificate, and the allowance is not paid for a month for which it is not furnished. And the amount is not open-ended: the increase and the reduction after three months are each capped at 50% of the first-three-months figure.

A worked example

Take a servant in Level 6 of the pay matrix drawing a basic pay of Rs. 44,900 immediately before suspension, living in a city where house rent allowance is admissible at 20%, and assume dearness allowance is in force at 55% (the rate for the revision effective 1 January 2025, Department of Expenditure Office Memorandum dated 20 March 2025; apply the current rate when computing an actual case).

The half-pay leave salary is 50% of Rs. 44,900, which is Rs. 22,450. That is the subsistence allowance for the first three months. Dearness allowance at 55% on Rs. 22,450 is Rs. 12,348 (rounded). House rent allowance continues at 20% of the pre-suspension basic pay, Rs. 8,980, provided the servant certifies that the rent is still being paid. The monthly drawal for the first three months is therefore Rs. 22,450 plus Rs. 12,348 plus Rs. 8,980, which is Rs. 43,778.

The table below shows how the subsistence-allowance element then moves after three months, on the same Rs. 44,900 basic pay. Dearness allowance is recomputed on whichever figure applies, and house rent allowance continues unchanged.

Transport allowance stops, because a servant under suspension is not required to attend office. Office Memorandum No. 21/5/2017-E.II(B) dated 7 July 2017 withdraws it for any calendar month wholly covered by suspension, and that position holds even where the suspension period is later treated as duty. Where the suspension covers a calendar month only partially, the transport allowance for that month is reduced proportionately, which makes suspension the one head under that order that is not decided by whole calendar months.

The subsistence allowance is subject to the ordinary deductions that are compulsory, such as recovery of house rent for government accommodation and repayment of advances, but it is protected against most other recoveries so that the servant is left with something to live on. Income tax is deducted where the amount is taxable. The servant continues to be a subscriber to the General Provident Fund but subscription during suspension is not compulsory.

Headquarters and conduct during suspension

A servant under suspension is still a servant, and remains bound by the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The suspension keeps the servant away from the office and its records, but does not sever the service relationship or the obligations that come with it.

Departmental instructions require the suspended servant to remain at the headquarters of the last office, and not to leave that headquarters without the prior permission of the competent authority. The purpose is availability: the servant must be reachable and present for the inquiry, and the point is reinforced by the non-employment certificate that conditions the subsistence allowance, since a servant who has taken up work elsewhere is neither available nor entitled. Permission to move headquarters during a long suspension may be granted, and where it is, the subsistence allowance is drawn from the new station.

The servant cannot perform any of the duties of the post, cannot exercise its financial or administrative powers, and must hand over the charge of the office on being suspended. The servant does not earn increments during suspension, does not earn leave, and cannot be granted leave, because leave presupposes a right to return to duty which suspension has interrupted. The period does not count as qualifying service for pension unless and until it is later regulated as duty on reinstatement. A servant who is due to retire on superannuation while under suspension does retire on the due date; suspension does not extend service, and the case is then regulated as if the servant had been reinstated on the date of retirement.

Review of suspension and the 90-day rule

The most heavily litigated feature of suspension is its duration, because an order that is easy to pass can, if left alone, keep a servant on half pay for years while the department takes its time to frame a charge. Two overlapping controls now govern how long a suspension can run: a statutory review mechanism inside Rule 10, and a judicial time limit tied to the service of the charge sheet.

The statutory control is in Rule 10(6) and Rule 10(7). An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made must be reviewed by the authority competent to modify or revoke it, before the expiry of 90 days from the effective date of suspension, on the recommendation of a Review Committee constituted for the purpose, and that authority must pass an order either extending or revoking the suspension. An order of suspension is not valid beyond 90 days unless it is so extended after review before the 90 days expire. Any extension may not exceed 180 days at a time, and each further continuance requires a fresh review before the running period ends. This mechanism, which for years rested only on executive instructions and the Review Committees set up under the Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum of 7 January 2004, was given a statutory footing by the amendment of Rule 10 notified in 2007, and the whole framework was drawn together in the consolidated instructions in the Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum No. 11012/17/2013-Estt.(A) dated 2 January 2014 and the updated Information Document on Suspension dated 4 November 2022.

The judicial control comes from the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, decided on 16 February 2015 (Civil Appeal No. 1912 of 2015). The appellant, a Defence Estates Officer suspended on 30 September 2011, had his suspension extended again and again over more than eighteen months while no memorandum of charges was served. The Court drew an analogy with the criminal law on detention: if an accused charged with the most serious crime must be released once the investigation crosses the statutory period without a charge sheet, then a suspension should not be continued after a similar period when no memorandum of charges has been served. The Court directed that a suspension should not be extended beyond a period of three months if, within that period, the memorandum of charges is not served on the servant. The practical effect is that a department which wishes to keep a servant suspended must serve the charge sheet within three months, and the charge sheet, not the suspension order, becomes the document that keeps the suspension alive.

The three-month direction has been read carefully by later benches. It does not mean that a suspension automatically lapses on the ninety-first day; it means that the suspension should not be extended beyond three months unless the charge sheet has been served. Where the charge sheet has been served and a departmental inquiry is under way, a suspension can lawfully continue beyond three months, subject always to the Rule 10 reviews. In cases of deemed suspension where the servant is still in detention, the review is not required while the detention continues, and the 90-day period is computed from the date the servant is released from detention or the date the release is intimated to the appointing authority, whichever is later.

The Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary also confirmed the alternatives to a prolonged suspension. A department worried that a servant on duty might interfere with the investigation can transfer the servant to another office, within or outside the State, to break the local contacts that could be misused, and can bar the servant from handling the relevant records, rather than keeping the servant suspended on subsistence allowance for months. The transfer route is discussed in the article on transfer.

Revocation, reinstatement, and the intervening period

A suspension ends by revocation. Under Rule 10(5)(c) the competent authority may modify or revoke an order of suspension at any time, and it must do so when the ground for the suspension no longer exists: when the department decides not to proceed, when the servant is exonerated, when a criminal case ends in acquittal, or when a review concludes that the continued suspension is not warranted. Revocation takes effect from the date of the order or a date specified in it, and the servant is reinstated in service.

Reinstatement raises the question that Fundamental Rule 54-B exists to answer: how is the period of suspension to be treated, and what is to be paid for it. On reinstatement, or where the servant would have been reinstated but for retirement on superannuation while under suspension, the authority competent to order reinstatement must make a specific order, first, on the pay and allowances to be paid for the period of suspension, and second, on whether that period is to be treated as a period spent on duty. The order is not automatic; the authority must apply its mind and record a decision.

The outcome depends on how the proceedings ended:

• Where the servant is fully exonerated, or where the suspension is found to have been wholly unjustified, the entire period of suspension is treated as duty for all purposes, and the servant is paid full pay and allowances for the period, less the subsistence allowance already drawn, which is adjusted against the arrears. The same full treatment follows where a servant dies while under suspension before the proceedings conclude: under Fundamental Rule 54-B the period from suspension to death is treated as duty, which matters for the family pension and the death gratuity.
• Where a penalty is imposed, including a minor penalty, the competent authority decides the treatment of the period and the pay for it, and may direct that the period be treated as duty, or as leave of the kind due and admissible, or, in the extreme, as a period that does not count for any purpose, that is dies non, for the intervening time.
• Where a dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement has been set aside by a court on the merits, Fundamental Rule 54-A governs the period between the penalty and the reinstatement, including the preceding suspension. On an honourable acquittal, the servant is entitled to full pay and allowances and the period is treated as duty. Where the acquittal is only on the benefit of doubt, or where the reinstatement follows on a technicality rather than on the merits, back pay does not follow as a matter of course, and the authority determines the pay for the period, subject to adjustment of anything the servant earned through employment during the interval.

Where the competent authority finds that the suspension itself was wholly unjustified or was not ordered in good faith, the payment of full pay and allowances is a loss to the exchequer, and the instructions contemplate that action may be considered to recover that loss from the authority that ordered the suspension. That consequence, though rarely enforced, is the counterweight to the ease with which a suspension can be ordered. The mechanics of coming back on duty, and the pay fixation that follows, are covered in the article on reinstatement.

How suspension differs from the penalties

The sharpest and most useful distinction in this area is between suspension under Rule 10 and the penalties under Rule 11, because the two are constantly confused. Suspension is a state a servant is held in while the case is decided; a penalty is the decision. The penalties in Rule 11 are, as minor penalties, censure, withholding of promotion, recovery from pay of a pecuniary loss caused to the government, reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period, and withholding of increments; and as major penalties, reduction to a lower time scale, grade, post or service, reduction in rank, compulsory retirement, removal from service, and dismissal from service.

The differences are set out below.

The distinction is not academic. Because suspension is not a penalty, the constitutional safeguard of an inquiry does not apply to it, and a servant cannot resist a suspension on the ground that no charge has been proved; that is the whole point of the interim measure. Equally, because it is not a penalty, a suspension cannot be used as a substitute for one. A department that suspends a servant and then sits on the case, extracting a long spell on half pay as a de facto punishment without ever framing a charge, is misusing Rule 10, and that misuse is exactly what the review mechanism and the Ajay Kumar Choudhary time limit are meant to stop. The route from an allegation to a penalty runs through the major and minor penalty proceedings under Rule 14 and Rule 16, with the safeguards of a charge sheet, an inquiry, and a hearing, and with an appeal, review and revision afterwards.

Suspension and promotion: the sealed cover

A servant under suspension, or against whom a disciplinary or criminal proceeding is pending, cannot be denied consideration for promotion merely because of the cloud, but neither can the promotion be given while the cloud remains. The device that reconciles the two is the sealed cover procedure. When a Departmental Promotion Committee considers a batch that includes a servant under suspension or facing proceedings, the Committee assesses the servant on the record and keeps its recommendation in a sealed cover, which is opened and acted on only after the proceedings conclude. If the servant is exonerated, the promotion is given with retrospective effect from the date the juniors were promoted, subject to the rules; if a penalty follows, the sealed cover is dealt with accordingly. The Annual Performance Appraisal Report record and the servant’s seniority both feed into that assessment.

Constitutional safeguards

Suspension sits inside the constitutional scheme for the civil services. Article 309 of the Constitution lets the appropriate legislature or the President regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union, and the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 are rules made under Article 309. Article 310 embodies the doctrine of pleasure: a servant of the Union holds office during the pleasure of the President. That pleasure is not unlimited; it is cut down by Article 311.

Article 311 is the core protection. Article 311(1) provides that a servant cannot be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to the one that appointed them. Article 311(2) provides that a servant cannot be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which the servant has been informed of the charges and given a reasonable opportunity to answer them. The key point for suspension is that Article 311 does not apply to it. Because suspension is neither dismissal, nor removal, nor reduction in rank, and is not a penalty, the Article 311(2) inquiry is not a precondition to a suspension. This is settled law, and it is why a suspension can be ordered on the strength of an allegation, before any charge is proved. What protects the servant against an arbitrary or prolonged suspension is not Article 311 but the requirement of a competent authority and a valid ground under Rule 10, the mandatory reviews under Rule 10(6) and (7), the Ajay Kumar Choudhary time limit, the subsistence allowance under Fundamental Rule 53, and the right to challenge the order in appeal under Rule 23 or before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Common errors

• Treating suspension as a penalty. It is not one of the penalties in Rule 11; it is an interim measure under Rule 10, and a servant can be suspended and then fully exonerated.
• Assuming a suspension needs a proved charge. It does not; a valid ground under Rule 10(1), a contemplated or pending proceeding, a security concern, or a criminal case under investigation, is enough, and Article 311 does not apply.
• Confusing the 48-hour trigger. Deemed suspension follows detention or a conviction-imprisonment exceeding 48 hours, not any arrest; for a conviction the 48 hours runs from the start of imprisonment and intermittent periods are added.
• Thinking a deemed suspension ends when the detention ends. It continues until revoked under Rule 10(5), as held in Union of India v. Rajiv Kumar.
• Reading the 90-day rule as an automatic lapse. The suspension does not fall away on the ninety-first day; it must not be extended beyond three months unless the charge sheet has been served, and it must be reviewed before 90 days under Rule 10(6).
• Forgetting the non-employment certificate. No subsistence allowance is paid for a month for which the servant does not certify that they are not otherwise employed.
• Overlooking the reinstatement order. On reinstatement the authority must pass a specific order under Fundamental Rule 54-B on the treatment of the period and the pay; it is not automatic, and full pay follows only on exoneration or a wholly unjustified suspension.
• Assuming the terminal payments are unaffected. Where a servant retires on attaining the age of retirement while under suspension, or with disciplinary or criminal proceedings pending, Rule 39(3) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 allows the authority competent to grant leave to withhold the whole or part of the leave encashment where money may become recoverable on the conclusion of the proceedings, and Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 carries a parallel power over the pension. Both are provisional, and the withheld amount becomes payable when the proceedings conclude, after adjustment of government dues.

Related Articles

• CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965
• Subsistence allowance
• Extraordinary leave
• Fundamental Rules
• Departmental inquiry
• Charge sheet and articles of charge
• Major versus minor penalty proceedings
• Appeal, review and revision under the CCS (CCA) Rules
• Sealed cover procedure
• Minor penalty
• Reduction in rank
• Withholding of increment
• Dismissal and removal from service
• Compulsory retirement
• Premature retirement
• Reinstatement
• Central Administrative Tribunal
• Article 311
• Article 309
• Doctrine of pleasure
• CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964
• Central Vigilance Commission
• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
• Department of Personnel and Training
• All India Services
• Leave salary
• Half pay leave
• Dearness allowance
• House rent allowance
• Government accommodation
• Transfer
• Transfer of charge
• Qualifying service
• Dies non
• Seniority
• Annual Performance Appraisal Report
• Lien
• Superannuation
• Family pension
• Death gratuity
• Central government employees in India

External references

• CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, Department of Personnel and Training
• Department of Personnel and Training
• Central Vigilance Commission
• Central Administrative Tribunal
• Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015), judgment text
• Department of Expenditure

References

1. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Rule 10 (suspension, deemed suspension, revocation and review) and Rule 11 (penalties), Department of Personnel and Training.
2. Rule 10(2), CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, deemed suspension on detention in custody exceeding 48 hours and on conviction with imprisonment exceeding 48 hours.
3. Rule 10(6) and Rule 10(7), CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, mandatory review before 90 days on the recommendation of a Review Committee, validity capped at 90 days unless extended, and extension not exceeding 180 days at a time (statutory basis inserted by the 2007 amendment to Rule 10).
4. Fundamental Rule 53 (subsistence allowance during suspension: leave salary on half pay plus dearness allowance for the first three months, revision up or down by up to 50% after three months, non-employment certificate).
5. Fundamental Rules 54, 54-A and 54-B (regulation of the period of suspension on reinstatement; treatment as duty and pay and allowances on exoneration, on a wholly unjustified suspension, on death during suspension, and on a court setting aside a dismissal on merits).
6. Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, Supreme Court of India, judgment dated 16 February 2015 (Civil Appeal No. 1912 of 2015), suspension not to be extended beyond three months if the memorandum of charges is not served.
7. Union of India v. Rajiv Kumar, Supreme Court of India, holding that a deemed suspension under Rule 10(2) is not restricted in duration to the actual period of detention and continues until revoked.
8. Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum No. 11012/17/2013-Estt.(A) dated 2 January 2014, consolidated instructions on suspension, and the Review Committees set up under the Office Memorandum dated 7 January 2004.
9. Department of Personnel and Training, updated Information Document on Suspension, dated 4 November 2022.
10. Constitution of India, Articles 309, 310 and 311, and Rule 23 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (appeals), on the constitutional safeguards and the right of appeal against a suspension order.