Rajasthan High Court reinstated the suspension order of a Block Chief Medical Officer, accused of sexual harassment at workplace, which was set aside by the tribunal on the ground that no charge sheet was served upon the accused-respondent before suspending him.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that while it was laid down that if the charge sheet was not served, the suspension could not be extended beyond 3 months, however, no consequences was contemplated to the effect that in absence of a charge sheet the suspension would become illegal or be quashed automatically.

The Court further opined that more caution had to be exercised in cases involving sexual harassment to protect the interest of the complainant. If the suspension order was quashed on such technical grounds, it would send wrong message and put the complainant under pressure.

For context, the respondent was working as a Block Chief Medical Officer when a complaint of sexual harassment was made against him, post which he was put under suspension. In the suspension order, it was clearly mentioned that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated and the department shall initiate the same.

As per the State, immediately after the suspension order, they commenced drafting the charge sheet. However, even before the expiry of the 3 months from the date of the suspension order, the respondent approached the tribunal that set aside the suspension order on the sole ground that charge sheet was not served within 3 months. This order was challenged.

The State argued that a suspension order did not automatically expire merely because the charge sheet was not served within 3 months. Further, the order was premature, since the period of three months had not expired when the respondent approached the Tribunal.

After hearing the contentions, the Court firstly highlighted that no law contemplated any mandatory service of notice prior to passing a suspension order.

Further, reference was made to the Supreme Court case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v Union of India in which it was held that,

“…suspension should not be extended beyond three months if charge-sheet is not served, but the Hon'ble Apex Court has never held that in absence of charge-sheet the suspension becomes illegal or should be quashed automatically. The said judgment only provides that the suspension order should be reviewed and reasons should be recorded for its extension. The judgment does not lay down that non-service of charge-sheet within three months will result into quashing of suspension.”

Furthermore, the Court stated that in the present case, the respondent approached the Tribunal before the expiry of the 3 months period, when the department was still in the process of serving the charge sheet. Hence, the tribunal had no occasion to hold that the department failed to serve the notice within 3 months, making the action of the respondent premature.

Accordingly, tribunal's order was set aside, and the suspension order of the respondent was reinstated.

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Archit Bohra, Addl. GC ; Mr. Prakhar Jain; Mr. Yashwant Singh

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Ashwinee Jaiman; Mr. R.P. Saini; Mr. Moin Khan; Mr. Aamir Khan