Suspension Order Not Invalid Merely Because It Doesn't Expressly State Inquiry Is Contemplated: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has held that where the application of mind by the concerned authority was apparent in a suspension order, such that it reflected that disciplinary proceedings were warranted, then omission of specific terms like “in contemplation of inquiry” would not render the order illegal. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 321]The bench of Justice Rekha Borana further stated that servicing...
The Rajasthan High Court has held that where the application of mind by the concerned authority was apparent in a suspension order, such that it reflected that disciplinary proceedings were warranted, then omission of specific terms like “in contemplation of inquiry” would not render the order illegal. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 321]
The bench of Justice Rekha Borana further stated that servicing of charge sheet to the concerned employee within 3 months of passing the suspension order was not a mandate but only a directive, and failure to issue the charge sheet within this timeline, did not make the suspension bad.
For context, the Court was hearing a petition challenging an order that allowed respondent's appeal against her suspension order.
The tribunal had allowed the appeal on the following grounds: 1) no inquiry was pending or contemplated against the respondent; 2) no preliminary inquiry was conducted before suspension; 3) no notice was served on the respondent before passing the suspension order; and 4) no charge sheet was served within 3 months from suspension.
After hearing the contentions, the Court perused the order and highlighted that Note 4 appended to the order reflected that while passing the order, the concerned authority had directed the concerned official to prepare memorandum of charges against the respondent employee and forward the same to the authority.
In this light, the Court observed, “…term 'contemplation of inquiry' although not defined in any statute but it means application of mind by the Authority concerned to the effect that he has applied his mind and reached to an objective conclusion that a disciplinary proceeding is warranted in the matter…In the present matter, such application of mind and intent of the Authority can definitely be concluded from the above Note as appended to the order of suspension. Vide the said order, the competent Authority has specifically been directed to prepare and furnish the memorandum of charges so as to initiate the disciplinary proceedings.”
The Court stated that omitting the phrase “contemplate of inquiry” in the suspension order was a mere irregularity, and where the intent was clear, such omission could not be read to render the order illegal.
Furthermore, the Court held that servicing charge sheet within 3 moths from suspension order was not a mandate but a directive, and since in the present matter, the charge sheet was eventually served, its non-service within 3 months, could not render the suspension order bad.
In relation to other grounds on which the appeal was allowed by the tribunal, the Court opined,
“…findings recorded by the learned Tribunal to the effect that the order of suspension was bad because of no preliminary inquiry being conducted; no notice being served; no opportunity of hearing been granted to the employee prior to passing of the order of suspension; are concerned, the said findings are clearly contrary to the settled position of law. Further, the finding to the effect that suspension is a severe punishment, is also alien to law.”
It was also stated that there was no provision in law mandating a preliminary inquiry or service of notice before suspending an employee.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the suspension order was reinstated.
Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Dr. Maneesha
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 321
Counsel for Petitioner(s): Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with Mr. Yashwant Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s): Mr. Ashok Bansal with Mr. Pawan Sharma and Ayush Bansal