Prolonged Suspension From Service Mirrors Penalty: Rajasthan HC Directs State To Ensure 'Reasonable Timeline' For Further Action, Lays Guidelines
The Rajasthan High Court ruled that even though suspension is though legally not a penalty but an interim measure, however when dragged for a prolonged period mirrors punishment or “disguised” punishment.In doing so the court issued a mandamus to the State of Rajasthan–through Secretary, Department of Personnel, to ensure that all "competent authorities vested with the power to...
The Rajasthan High Court ruled that even though suspension is though legally not a penalty but an interim measure, however when dragged for a prolonged period mirrors punishment or “disguised” punishment.
In doing so the court issued a mandamus to the State of Rajasthan–through Secretary, Department of Personnel, to ensure that all "competent authorities vested with the power to suspend government servants adhere to a reasonable timeline for taking further action following a suspension order passed due to pending criminal proceedings".
After perusing existing statutory law, precedents as well as administrative circulars on suspension,Justice Arun Monga laid down the following guidelines to be borne in mind by the competent authority/review committee, before ordering suspension, as well as for its further continuation or revocation:
1. General Principles:
Suspension due to criminal proceedings shall be based on objective evaluation, and not mere allegations. Suspension must serve public interest, an FIR along was not a sufficient ground. Similarly, grant of prosecution sanction also must not, per se, be a mechanical reason to suspend.
2. Grounds of Suspension:
Suspension might be justified if charges involved corruption, financial misconduct, security threats, or moral turpitude. Continued service might hinder investigation or trial by influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The offence undermined public trust.
3. Time Limits on Suspension:
If no charge sheet was filed by the prosecution in trial court within 3 months, suspension shall not be extended unless special reasons existed and were recorded. In case, charge sheet was filed in trial court within 3 months of suspension, period of suspension shall normally not exceed 2 years unless trial was close to completion. If criminal trial was delayed and exceeded 3 years, the competent authority must consider alternatives like transfer to a non-sensitive post, by revoking suspension.
4. Periodic Review:
Suspension must be reviewed every 4 months by the review committee and/or competent authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (“the Rules”). Review must assess trial progress, continued need for suspension, and possible alternatives.
5. Alternatives to Indefinite Suspension:
Instead of prolonged suspension, the competent authority must consider transfer to a non-sensitive role.
6. Distinction between serious and minor offences:
Minor offences (triable by Magistrate but not all), did not justify suspension. But serious offences (session trials or other crimes against society or corruption, fraud, harassment etc.), might require immediate action. Decision to suspend must reflect nature and impact of the offence.
"It is thus specifically directed that if a challan/charge sheet is not filed before the trial court within 90 days from the date of suspension order, the suspending authority, upon being approached by the suspended official, must decide under Rule 13(5) of CCA Rules whether to continue or revoke the suspension by providing written reasons to the suspended employee. If three years have elapsed since the challan/charge sheet was filed and the trial remains pending, the competent authority must reconsider the necessity of continued suspension and convey reasons in writing. Failure to comply with the specified timelines, as directed, would accord the suspended government servant an indefeasible right to seek revocation of suspension by filing an appeal under Rule 22 of CCA Rules.Further, it is directed that any appeal filed under Rule 22 must be decided by the appellate authority within 30 days of receipt; if not, reasons for the delay must be recorded in writing and communicated to the suspended government servant," the court added.
Background
The Court was hearing a bunch of petitions in which the petitioners who were in difference classes of services, had alleged inaction/delay on the part of the State in further proceedings, pursuant to their suspension.
The Court opined that even though suspension was a crucial tool for maintaining discipline and transparency in government services, it had to be exercised with caution since it was contemptuously perceived. It was further stated that when the suspension was prolonged, it effectively became punitive in nature irrespective of subsequent acquittal.
“The perception of collateral punishment is thus most pronounced in a system with judicial delays i.e. India, where suspension can stretch for years, mimicking a penalty without conviction with financial cut on salary varying from 25% to 50%, as the case may be.”
The Court perused the constitutional framework, opining that prolonged suspension infringed right under Article 21 by depriving the employee of a dignified existence. Furthermore, reference was made to the Supreme Court case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v Union of India.
In this case, the Apex Court observed that if a charge sheet was not filed within 3 months, the suspension shall not be extended unless justified by special reasons. Prolonged suspension amounted to “punitive action”, and had to be reviewed periodically.
The Court also studied the administrative circulars and opined that as per these circulars, the powers of the State to suspend, had to be exercised in public interest while maintaining balance between administrative discipline and principles of presumption of innocence.
In this background, the Court concluded that a government servant, either accused in an FIR or under trial, in a pending criminal proceedings or proposed to be prosecuted, could not be continued to be under suspension until conclusion of trial till he/she was acquitted.
Further, it was held that suspension, when prolonged constituted a collateral punishment imposed solely on the State's harbouring a suspicion that the accused government servant shall ultimately be convicted in the pending criminal proceedings. It said:
“…prolonged suspension raises serious concerns about fairness, equity, and the presumption of innocence – a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence enshrined in Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reflected in common law systems. Suspension, though not a punishment in theory, has punitive consequences in practice: loss of income (beyond subsistence allowance), stagnation of career, and social stigma. When trials drag on for years…suspension becomes a de facto penalty imposed without a finding of guilt....Legally, suspension is an interim measure, not a penalty, is the settled position, yet, when prolonged, its effects mirror those of punishment or“disguised” punishment.”
In this light, the Court laid down the guidelines as set out above, and issued a writ of mandamus to the State. It further directed that the State of Rajasthan shall ensure taking appropriate steps to sensitize the concerned authorities of the State Government about the guidelines as well as the issued mandamus, for compliance.
Title: Naru Lal Meghwal v the State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 158