Suspension in corruption cases requires fact-specific balancing; delay alone does not compel reinstatement, and inquiry integrity remains central.

In suspension cases involving serious corruption allegations against a disciplined employee, delay in disciplinary proceedings does not create an inflexible right to reinstatement. The governing approach is a fact-specific balancing of public interest, the nature of the charges, and the stage of the inquiry, and Article 21 considerations do not automatically override the need to protect the integrity of the process. Applying that balance, the reinstatement direction was modified, the employee was treated as on leave with salary for three months, and the disciplinary inquiry was required to be completed with cooperation from the employee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suspension and consequential reinstatement directions required interference in view of the pending corruption charges and the delay in disciplinary proceedings.

Analysis: The respondent was facing serious allegations of corruption in a disciplined force, where public confidence, integrity, and the need to prevent interference with inquiry proceedings had to be weighed against the delay in conducting those proceedings. The earlier authorities on prolonged suspension were not treated as laying down an absolute rule, and the governing approach was held to depend on the facts, the nature of the charges, and the stage of the disciplinary process. The Court held that a case-by-case balancing exercise was necessary, and that Article 21 considerations could not automatically override the seriousness of graft allegations. On the facts, the learned Single Judge's direction for reinstatement on a non-sensitive post was modified and the respondent was instead to be treated as on leave with salary for three months, during which the inquiry was to be concluded.

Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part and the reinstatement direction was interfered with to the extent indicated, leaving the disciplinary inquiry to be completed with the respondent's cooperation.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases of suspension involving serious corruption allegations against a disciplined employee, there is no inflexible rule mandating reinstatement for delay alone; the proper course is a fact-specific balancing of public interest, the nature of the charges, and the stage of the proceedings.

---