Employee Suspension Ruling: Limits, Revocation, Trial Completion Order

The writ court held that prolonged suspension of an employee under criminal investigation, lasting over six years, was unjustified. It emphasized that suspension should not exceed three months without a reasoned order, as per precedent. The court criticized the payment of subsistence allowance without work, directing the consideration of revocation of suspension and assignment to a non-sensitive post. Additionally, it ordered the expedited completion of the criminal trial. The appellate court upheld these decisions, rejecting the State's appeal against revocation of suspension and emphasizing the need to avoid unnecessary financial burden on the public exchequer.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of prolonged suspension of an employee under criminal investigation.
2. Payment of subsistence allowance during suspension.
3. Directive to consider representation for revocation of suspension.
4. Directive to expedite the criminal trial.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Prolonged Suspension:
The respondent, an employee of the Electricity Board, was placed under suspension following a criminal case filed by the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The suspension, which began on 01.05.2015, continued for over six years. The writ court held that "an employee cannot be kept under a prolonged suspension just because there is a criminal case pending against him." The court emphasized that such prolonged suspension without extracting work from the employee drains the public exchequer. The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India, which directs that suspension should not extend beyond three months unless justified by a reasoned order.

2. Payment of Subsistence Allowance:
The court noted that the respondent was receiving subsistence allowance during the suspension period. The judgment pointed out that paying subsistence allowance without extracting work is an unnecessary financial burden on the public exchequer. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Pramod Kumar, which discourages prolonged suspension and suggests that employees under suspension should be assigned non-sensitive posts to ensure they contribute to the organization while the trial is pending.

3. Directive to Consider Representation for Revocation of Suspension:
The respondent made a representation on 17.09.2019 for the revocation of his suspension, which was rejected by the third appellant. The writ court directed the second appellant to consider this representation in light of relevant judgments and to pass appropriate orders within four weeks. The court suggested that the respondent could be posted in a non-sensitive post rather than being kept idle and receiving subsistence allowance.

4. Directive to Expedite the Criminal Trial:
The writ court directed the Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai, to dispose of C.C. No.2 of 2017 within three months from the date of receipt of the order, ensuring that the trial proceeds on a day-to-day basis without unnecessary adjournments. This directive was reiterated in the appellate judgment, emphasizing the need to complete the trial expeditiously.

Appellate Judgment:
The State's appeal contended that the writ court should not have directed the revocation of suspension while the criminal proceedings were still pending. The State argued that the respondent's retention in service could demoralize other employees and frustrate the objectives of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellate court, however, upheld the writ court's decision, noting that the respondent had been under suspension for an extended period without significant progress in the trial. The court reiterated that the respondent could be assigned to a non-sensitive post to ensure that public funds are not wasted on subsistence allowance without work. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, directing the Special Court to complete the trial within three months and confirming that the respondent's representation for revocation of suspension should be considered promptly.

---