The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that a government employee's suspension cannot ordinarily continue beyond three months where no charge-sheet has been served, holding that prolonged suspension without initiation of disciplinary proceedings cannot be permitted to operate as a form of punishment.

A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad was hearing a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which had interfered with the prolonged suspension of a postal employee.

The employee, who was working as Treasurer at the Giridih Head Post Office, was placed under suspension on September 27, 2019 in connection with an alleged fraud of more than ₹26 crore in the Jharkhand Postal Circle.

Although his suspension was periodically reviewed, the departmental charge-sheet was served only on March 7, 2022, nearly two-and-a-half years after the suspension. The authorities sought to justify the delay on the ground that the CBI investigation into the alleged financial irregularities was pending.

The employee challenged the prolonged suspension before the CAT, which quashed the suspension and directed the authorities to consider his entitlement to salary after the first three months, subject to adjustment of the subsistence allowance already paid. The Union of India challenged the CAT's order before the High Court, contending that the seriousness of the allegations and pendency of the investigation justified continuation of the suspension.

The High Court, however, relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, reiterating the distinction between suspension as a preventive measure and suspension as a punitive measure. The Court observed that suspension is intended to prevent an employee from interfering with an investigation or disciplinary proceedings and cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely in the absence of a charge-sheet.

The Bench reiterated:

“The currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if a charge sheet is not served on the delinquent officer. If a charge sheet is served, the suspension can be extended, but a review must be conducted before the expiry of the three months and the suspension order will not be valid after three months unless a review has extended it.”

Applying this principle, the Court noted that the employee had remained under suspension from September 27, 2019, whereas the departmental charge-sheet was issued only on March 7, 2022.

The Court found that the pendency of the CBI investigation could not, by itself, justify such prolonged suspension. It observed that the authorities could have initiated departmental proceedings earlier or, where necessary, recalled the suspension and permitted the employee to resume duties while the investigation continued.

The Bench also noted that prolonged suspension causes significant prejudice to an employee, while the subsistence allowance paid during suspension is intended only to enable the employee to sustain himself and effectively participate in the proceedings.

Finding no error in the CAT's decision, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case: Union of India and Ors. v. Shashi Bhushan Kumar.

Case No.: W.P.(S) No. 1251 of 2026

Appearance: For the Petitioners – Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, CGC. For the Respondent – Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate.

Click Here To Read/Download Order