Preventive suspension in service law may stand where serious allegations support inquiry or criminal investigation.

Statutory suspension pending disciplinary proceedings or criminal investigation is a preventive measure, not a punishment, and may be sustained where the appointing authority acts on serious allegations supported by relevant material. The power under Rule 12 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules covered suspension when disciplinary proceedings were contemplated or pending, or when a criminal case was under investigation or trial. The Court noted allegations of financial irregularities, misappropriation and disproportionate assets, held the suspension to be justified, and ruled that the Tribunal should not lightly interfere with such an order at an interlocutory stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order placing the respondent under suspension pending disciplinary inquiry and criminal investigation was justified, and whether the Tribunal was right in interfering with that suspension.

Analysis: Rule 12 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules empowered the appointing authority to place a government servant under suspension where disciplinary proceedings were contemplated or pending, or where a criminal case was under investigation or trial. The material before the authority disclosed serious allegations of financial irregularities, misappropriation and possession of disproportionate assets, and the suspension was founded on those circumstances. Suspension in service law is a preventive measure and not a punishment; it is meant to keep the delinquent out of office where continuance may prejudice inquiry, investigation, public interest, or the course of justice. In such matters, the authority must apply its mind to the gravity of the allegations and the evidence available, but the Tribunal should not lightly interdict a suspension order passed on relevant material, particularly at an interlocutory stage.

Conclusion: The suspension order was valid and the Tribunal was not justified in staying it; the interference was unsustainable and the challenge to the suspension succeeded in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory power exists to suspend pending contemplated disciplinary proceedings or criminal investigation, and the order is based on serious allegations supported by relevant material, suspension may be sustained as a preventive step in aid of inquiry, and a tribunal should not interfere merely on an interim basis without compelling grounds.

---