High Court grants Writ of Mandamus for government employee challenging suspension extension without justification.

The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a government employee seeking a Writ of Mandamus to review a prolonged suspension without a reasoned order for extension. Citing a Government Circular and a Supreme Court decision, the Court emphasized that suspension orders should be temporary and of short duration, with renewals based on sound reasoning. The Court directed the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation, highlighting the importance of timely and reasoned decisions regarding suspension orders to uphold legal standards and fairness.

---

---

Issues:
Petitioner seeking Writ of Mandamus for suspension order review based on Supreme Court decision and Government Circular.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a government employee, filed a Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to consider and pass orders on his representation dated 24.02.2016. The petitioner joined service in 1995 and was suspended in 2011 due to a criminal complaint. Despite the charge sheet being filed in 2013, there was no progress in the trial, and the suspension continued without a review. The petitioner relied on a Government Circular issued in 2015 and a Supreme Court decision to argue against the prolonged suspension without a reasoned order for extension.

The petitioner's counsel cited the legal position established by the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case, emphasizing that suspension orders cannot be prolonged indefinitely. The counsel pointed out that as per the Government Circular, a suspension order should not extend beyond three months without serving the charge sheet or without a reasoned order for extension. The petitioner's case fell under the first situation as the charge memo was issued after more than a year, and the suspension was not reviewed by the respondent.

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case, the High Court noted that suspensions should be temporary and of short duration, and their renewal must be based on sound reasoning. In this case, the petitioner was suspended in 2011, and the charge memo was issued in 2013 without a reasoned order for extension. The Court agreed with the petitioner's argument that the prolonged suspension was not permissible under the law and directed the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing that the respondent must review the suspension order in light of the legal principles and the Government Circular. The Court highlighted the need for timely and reasoned decisions regarding suspension orders to ensure fairness and compliance with legal standards.

---