Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondents.
By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned suspension order dated 06.09.2018, contained at Annexure 1 to the petition and also to command the respondents to allow the petitioner to perform his duties on the post of Sub-Inspector.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petition was filed in the year 2018 and and till date no counter affidavit has been filed by the State. The petitioner was suspended without affording any opportunity of hearing by the impugned order alleging therein that the charges levelled against the petitioner is under contemplated enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inquiry has not been completed till date and the charge-sheet is also not served on the delinquent officer / employee. It is submitted that the suspension of a Government servant shall not be extended beyond a period of three months.
It is admitted position that the petitioner is under suspension w.e.f. 06.09.2018. In the case of Anshu Bharti vs. State of U.P. and others, reported at 2009(1) AWC 691, it has held that the prolonged suspension of the petitioner is clearly unjust and unwarranted. The question deals with the prolonged agony and mental torture of a suspended employee where inquiry either has not commenced or proceed with snail pace. Though suspension in a contemplated or pending inquiry is not a punishment but this is a different angle of the matter, which is equally important and needs careful consideration. A suspension during contemplation of departmental inquiry or pendency thereof by itself is not a punishment if resorted to by the competent authority to enquire into the allegations levelled against the employee giving him an opportunity of participation to find out whether the allegations are correct or not with due diligence and within a reasonable time. In case, allegations are not found correct, the employee is reinstated without any loss towards salary, etc., and in case the charges are proved, the disciplinary authority passes such order as provided under law. However, keeping an employee under suspension, either without holding any enquiry, or in a prolonged enquiry is unreasonable. It is neither just nor in larger public interest. A prolonged suspension by itself is penal.
Similarly an order of suspension at the initial stage may be valid fulfilling all the requirements of law but may become penal or unlawful with the passage of time, if the disciplinary inquiry is unreasonably prolonged or no inquiry is initiated at all without there being any fault or obstruction on the part of the delinquent employee. No person can be kept under suspension for indefinite period since during the period of suspension he is not paid full salary. He is also denied the enjoyment of status and therefore admittedly it has some adverse effect in respect of his status, life style and reputation in society. A person under suspension is looked with suspicion in the society by the persons with whom he meets in his normal discharge of function.
A Division Bench of this Court in Gajendra Singh Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 2004 (3) UPLBEC 2934 observed as under :
"We need not forget that when a Government officer is placed under suspension, he is looked with suspicious eyes not only by his collogues and friends but by public at large too."
Disapproving unreasonable prolonged suspension, the Apex Court in Public Service Tribunal Bar Association Vs. State of U.P. & others 2003 (1) UPLBEC 780 (SC) observed as under :
"If a suspension continues for indefinite period or the order of suspension passed is malafide, then it would be open to the employee to challenge the same by approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution........................(Para 26) The statutory power conferred upon the disciplinary authority to keep an employee under suspension during contemplated or pending disciplinary enquiry cannot thus be interpreted in a manner so as to confer an arbitrary, unguided an absolute power to keep an employee under suspension without enquiry for unlimited period or by prolonging enquiry unreasonably, particularly when the delinquent employee is not responsible for such delay. Therefore, I am clearly of the opinion that a suspension, if prolonged unreasonably without holding any enquiry or by prolonging the enquiry itself, is penal in nature and cannot be sustained.
In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that the impugned order of suspension satisfies the requirement of law and is sustainable.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order of suspension dated 06.09.2018 (Annexure 1 to writ petition) is hereby quashed. However, this order shall not preclude the respondent-competent authority from proceeding to conclude inquiry and pass final order.
Order Date :- 22.1.2021 VNP/-