2021 (8) TMI 1384 - HC - Indian Laws

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 ... Prolonged suspension for more than six years - case of Revenue is that the writ court, after granting a direction to the criminal court to conclude the proceedings in a time bound manner, should not have directed revocation of suspension, as the result of the criminal proceedings itself would give a solution to the issue as to whether the suspension of the petitioner is to be revoked or not - HELD THAT:- Under similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore vs. S.Govindaraj, [2011 (11) TMI 875 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] while considering Rule 3(e)(5) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, has categorically held that after a period of six months from the date of suspension, if an incumbent has to be paid 75% of his salary by way of subsistence allowance, such a person could be posted in a nonsensitive post, may be in a far off place. In the case on hand, the appellants have not followed the regulations laid down under Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employee's Discipline and Appeal Regulations 9 clause (dd) and (e) - A thorough reading of the said regulations would clearly show that the rule empowers the appellants herein, at any time, to revoke the suspension order. But, the appellants, have failed to consider the request for reviewing the order of prolonged suspension in spite of his representations. Thus, the learned single Judge has held that an employee cannot be kept under a prolonged suspension just because there is a criminal case pending against him and has categorically came to a conclusion that the subsistence allowance should not be paid to him without extracting any work from him - there are no error or defect in the order of the learned single Judge's observation that the appellants can consider posting the respondent herein/writ petitioner in a non-sensitive post and extract work from the petitioner rather than paying the subsistence allowance for no work. Appeal dismissed. 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.