Service suspension cannot override a final judicial direction; non-compliance with binding tribunal orders renders the action void.

Suspension could not be continued or renewed where the disciplinary authority failed to comply meaningfully with prior Tribunal directions that had attained finality. The Supreme Court reiterated that suspension is an interim administrative measure governed by service rules and will be interfered with when it is mala fide, arbitrary, unsupported by relevant material, or contrary to those rules. It further held that executive authorities cannot ignore or indirectly review a binding judicial order, and an order passed in contravention of a final judicial decision is void. On that basis, the continuation and renewal of suspension were held unjustified and illegal.

---

---

Issues: Whether continuation and renewal of the respondent's suspension could be sustained after the Tribunal's earlier directions had attained finality, and whether the disciplinary authority's orders suffered from non-application of mind and illegality.

Analysis: Suspension is an interim administrative measure governed by the applicable service rules, and courts ordinarily interfere only where the order is mala fide, arbitrary, unsupported by relevant material, or contrary to the governing rules. The earlier order of the Tribunal had required reconsideration of the matter on specified relevant factors, but it had not authorised the authority to ignore the judicial mandate or to pass a fresh order in a manner inconsistent with that mandate. The subsequent orders continuing suspension were found to have been passed without meaningful compliance with the earlier directions and in disregard of the finality of the Tribunal's order. The Court also emphasised that executive authorities cannot sit in appeal over judicial orders, and that an order passed in contravention of a final judicial decision is void.

Conclusion: The continuation and renewal of suspension were unjustified and illegal, and the challenge to the Tribunal and High Court orders failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A suspension order may be interfered with when its continuation is contrary to the governing service rules, passed without proper application of relevant material, or in violation of a final judicial direction; the executive cannot disregard or indirectly review an operative court order.

---