Suspension review limited to mala fides or arbitrariness; posting directions and merits comments were set aside.

Judicial review of a suspension order is confined to mala fides, arbitrariness, vindictiveness, or absence of prima facie material, and the suspension challenge was not sustained. Where alleged misconduct is linked to a particular workplace, the administration retains discretion over posting and transfer, so the direction to keep the delinquent employee at the same station and shift the other appellant was set aside. Any comment on the truth of the charges at the suspension stage was premature and was removed, leaving the departmental enquiry to proceed uninfluenced.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order of suspension was liable to be quashed; (ii) whether the delinquent employee could be directed to continue at the same place of posting and the other appellant be shifted elsewhere; and (iii) whether observations on the merits of the charge were justified at the stage of judicial review.

Issue (i): Whether the order of suspension was liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The scope of judicial review over a suspension order is limited and interference is ordinarily warranted only where the action is mala fide, arbitrary, vindictive, or unsupported by any prima facie material. The material on record showed that a departmental enquiry had been contemplated and initiated, and the suspension had been passed in the context of serious allegations connected with the employee's official role.

Conclusion: The quashing of the suspension order was affirmed and the challenge to that part failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the delinquent employee could be directed to continue at the same place of posting and the other appellant be shifted elsewhere.

Analysis: Where misconduct is alleged to have occurred at a particular place, permitting the delinquent to remain at the same post may be contrary to administrative interest, public interest, and the fairness of the enquiry. Posting and transfer decisions lie within the domain of the administration, and the court should not ordinarily direct retention at the same station in such circumstances.

Conclusion: The direction allowing the delinquent employee to continue at the same place of posting and shifting the other appellant was set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether observations on the merits of the charge were justified at the stage of judicial review.

Analysis: At the stage of suspension challenge, the court is not to record findings on the truth of the charges or give a clean chit, since the enquiry officer or competent authority must decide the merits after full enquiry. Such observations are premature when the material is yet to be examined in disciplinary proceedings.

Conclusion: The observations on the merits of the charge were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The writ appeals were disposed of by upholding the cancellation of suspension, while removing the directions concerning posting and the premature comments on the merits of the allegations; the departmental enquiry was left to proceed uninfluenced by those observations.

Ratio Decidendi: Judicial review of suspension is confined to mala fides, arbitrariness, or absence of prima facie material, and the court should not make merits-based findings or direct posting arrangements that interfere with the administration of a pending departmental enquiry.

---