Prolonged suspension without charges illegal, rules High Court

Reinforcing constitutional safeguards against arbitrary suspension, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the continuance of suspension beyond a reasonable period without initiation of departmental proceedings or issuance of a charge-sheet is per se illegal, punitive, and liable to be quashed. The Bench made it clear that suspension, though an administrative power, “is not unfettered” and must be exercised “judiciously and sparingly,” thereby setting a significant precedent in service jurisprudence.

“The power of suspension, though incidental to the authority to dismiss, is not unfettered. It must be exercised judiciously and sparingly, only in cases where there is a strong prima facie case of serious misconduct, moral turpitude or indiscipline, whereby the continuation of the employee in service would hamper the inquiry or affect public interest,” Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed.

The court clarified that suspension prior to the framing of charges was “meant to be temporary and transitory”, and could not be allowed to continue indefinitely. The ruling came as Justice Brar quashed the nearly three-year-long suspension of a Municipal Executive Officer, imposed on October 20, 2022, for want of any progress in either the disciplinary or criminal proceedings arising from an FIR.

Emphasising the lack of procedural justification, Justice Brar asserted: “It is evident that no memorandum of charges or charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner even after nearly three years of suspension. The suspension order dated October 20, 2022, was imposed mechanically in the wake of an FIR.”

Despite repeated representations and a legal notice, the authorities neither initiated disciplinary proceedings, nor issued any order extending the suspension. Justice Brar ruled that this omission rendered the order “per se illegal and contrary to the mandate of a Supreme Court judgment holding that suspension beyond three months without charge-sheet or review was impermissible.

Justice Brar further found that such protracted suspension had effectively turned punitive: “The protracted suspension, without any inquiry contemplated or charge-sheet issued, has become punitive, inflicting undue hardship upon the petitioner who is nearing superannuation on September 30, 2026, and depriving him of his legitimate right to serve till retirement.”

Referring to the financial aspect, Justice Brar invoked Rule 7.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I, which mandates subsistence allowance at 50 per cent of salary for the first six months and enhancement to 75 per cent thereafter.

Taking exception to the authorities’ failure to pay the enhanced allowance in time, the Court held: “The respondents’ delay in payment with only partial release is unjustified and arbitrary, amounting to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to the enhanced allowance from the due dates with interest at 12 per cent per annum, as prayed, to compensate for the financial distress caused by the respondents’ inaction.”

Allowing the writ petition, Justice Brar quashed the suspension order and directed reinstatement of the petitioner “forthwith,” with all consequential benefits including continuity of service, seniority, and emoluments, within two weeks of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The authorities were also directed to release the balance subsistence allowance with 12 per cent annual interest within the same period.