The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the extension of an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer's suspension, holding that it reflected "personal vendetta" on the part of certain high-ranking officials and amounted to an abuse of administrative power.

The Court imposed ₹5 lakh as exemplary costs on the Union Government and directed that the officer be considered reinstated after the expiry of the initial 90-day suspension period, with consequential service benefits.

The division bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Anuroop Singhi observed that the suspensions were extended only to convert it into a punishment and to deprive the petitioner from his right of being considered for promotion.

“The extensions were resorted to only to convert the suspension into a punishment and to deprive the petitioner's carrier advancement, and damage to his professional carrier for a trivial act of misconduct, even if ultimately proved, which would never warrant the penalty of removal or dismissal. Further, the suspension itself was unwarranted because the serious allegations of misconduct related to an incident in Delhi, whereas the petitioner was posted in Jodhpur.”

For context, the petitioner was an officer of the Indian Revenue Service of the 2012 batch. In September 2019, there was allegedly some altercation involving his sister & mother with the Under Secretary, GST Council. It was alleged that the family members misbehaved and used abusive language with the Secretary, while residing in the departmental pool accommodation.

This was followed by a series of delayed complaints by others, alleging abusive behaviour, against the petitioner and his family members. In this background, the petitioner was transferred from Delhi to Jodhpur in 2019. Subsequently, in 2021, the petitioner was suspended in contemplation of departmental proceedings.

This initial 90-days suspension was then extended further by two orders which remained operative till July 2022. During this period, there was a meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee, in which while the petitioner was deprived of promotion, his juniors were promoted.

In this background, the petitioner filed an original application, challenging the extensions of suspensions on the ground that there was no justified reasons for such extensions, and those were done only to deprive him of promotion. It was submitted that since no charge sheet was issued to him till the date of DPC meeting, had his suspension not been extended, he would have been promoted.

This application was rejected by the Tribunal, and hence, the present petition was filed challenged the two extension orders of his suspension as well as order of the tribunal.

After hearing the contentions, the Court firstly perused the past service record of the petitioner and highlighted that there was no complaint against him before the 2019 incident. Further, the Court stated that the initial complaint was only against the family members of the petitioner, and it was only the subsequent complaints, filed after inordinate delays, in which his name also appeared.

Furthermore, the Court perused other charge against the petitioner which alleged that the petitioner left the headquarters without waiting for sanction of leave applied for. The Court opined that, it was Covid times, when government servants had to leave due to fear of imminent danger to life. Hence, such allegation could not be considered grave or serious.

The Court further observed that by the time the first suspension order was passed in 2021, the relevant authorities were already in possession of all relevant material, complaints, counter-complaints etc. required for the departmental proceedings.

In this light, the Court held that none of the allegation were so grave or serious that justified either the initial suspension or even the continued suspension of the petitioner.

“The most unfortunate aspect of the present case is the extension of the petitioner's suspension for nearly one year in addition to the original period of suspension, on the basis of allegations arising out of a quarrel between two parties in pool residential accommodation…The manner in which these allegations were brought forth prima facie demonstrates personal vendetta on the part of certain high-ranking officials against the petitioner. Even assuming that such allegations are ultimately proved, they would not ordinarily warrant the extreme penalty of removal or dismissal from service.”

The Court concluded that the manner in which petitioner's suspension was dealt with, was clear abuse of power and process, and suffered from malice in law, that had serious implications on his promotional aspects, prejudicing his career and causing him mental and physical harassment.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the government was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5 Lakhs to the petitioner, as exemplary damages.

Further, the petitioner was directed to be treated as being reinstated from the expiry of initial 90 days suspension period, and if found eligible, be promoted from the same date as of his juniors.

Title: Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia v Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 313

Click Here To Read/Download Order