Prolonged suspension can become punitive when investigation delays remain unexplained; immediate reinstatement was directed.

Suspension under Rule 10(3) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960 was examined in light of a detention-based order that continued for more than 15 months while the investigation remained incomplete. The Court noted that suspension is not punishment by itself, but prolonged suspension can assume the character of punishment when delay in completing the investigation is unexplained. On that basis, it held the petitioner entitled to immediate reinstatement in service and directed expeditious consideration of the request to revoke the suspension.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, who had remained under suspension for a prolonged period and whose investigation was still pending, was entitled to reinstatement in service and revocation of the suspension order.

Analysis: The suspension was made under Rule 10(3) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960 on the ground of detention in custody for more than 48 hours. The Court noted that the investigation had not been completed and that the suspension had continued for more than 15 months. It held that while suspension is not punishment by itself, prolonged suspension assumes the character of punishment and is not justified when the delay in completing the investigation remains unexplained.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to immediate reinstatement in service and the second respondent was directed to pass orders on the request for revocation of suspension expeditiously.

---