Stalling suspension cases by pleading ignorance deserves deprecation: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has deprecated the state’s routine practice of delaying proceedings in suspension cases, rendering the petitions infructuous. The admonition came as the bench ruled that such conduct deprived the employees of substantive relief.

Justice Vinod S Bharadwaj also came down heavily on Haryana for citing “lack of instructions” to defer hearings for an indefinite period, making it clear that the state could not be permitted to drag matters merely on account of administrative laxity or failure to properly assist the counsel.

“By pleading lack of instructions, the respondent-state cannot be permitted to delay the proceedings indefinitely only because the administrative department is not careful, is not diligently pursuing the matters, or does not depute anybody to assist the state counsel. In matters such as suspension, where the durations are limited and timelines are significant, delay in the proceedings in such a manner is only a way by which a petition may be rendered infructuous and end up in futility and without any substantive relief to the petitioner. Same is being followed as a matter of practice by the respondent authorities in routine manner and deserves to be deprecated.”

The ruling came on a petition filed by an employee challenging a suspension order dated April 3. The petitioner’s counsel argued that he was required to be reinstated as disciplinary proceedings had not been initiated despite the lapse of 90 days, as required under the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016. He further contended that the competent authority also did not pass an order stating that the petitioner’s services were to be kept under suspension till culmination of the disciplinary proceedings.

Confronted with a pointed query from the bench, the state counsel confined his submission to the argument that suspension was not a punishment and, therefore, not open to challenge. However, when asked whether permission had been obtained to extend the “period of initiation of disciplinary proceedings” and about related issues, he admitted that he had “no instructions in this regard and seemingly no such order was passed”.

Finding merit in the petitioner’s stand, the court declared: “Since there is no order passed by the competent authority for keeping the petitioner under suspension till termination of the disciplinary proceedings and there also being no order by the competent authority approving extension of the period during which the disciplinary proceedings could be initiated and noticing that undisputedly a period of more than 90 days has elapsed and the departmental proceedings have not been initiated, I am of the opinion that under the aforesaid changed circumstances, the order of suspension cannot be enforced any further against the petitioner.”

Justice Bhardwaj added the suspension order was deemed invalid and stood revoked. “The present writ petition stands disposed of,” the court concluded.