Continued suspension may stand during serious corruption probes where seniority creates scope to influence witnesses or evidence.

Continued suspension was treated as a fact-specific administrative measure, not one requiring automatic revocation merely because a charge sheet had not yet been filed. The Delhi HC considered the seriousness of the corruption allegations, the ongoing CBI and PMLA investigations, the employee's senior position, and the possibility of influencing witnesses or evidence, and found these factors sufficient to justify continuation. The petitioner's non-disclosure of material facts was also viewed adversely. On that basis, no interference with the suspension order was warranted and the writ petition failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's continued suspension warranted interference in judicial review.

Analysis: The continuation of suspension was examined in the context of serious allegations of corruption, an ongoing investigation by the CBI, and parallel investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The Court held that there is no hard and fast rule requiring automatic revocation of suspension merely because a charge sheet has not yet been filed. The nature and gravity of the allegations, the material underlying them, and the petitioner's senior position and capacity to influence witnesses were treated as relevant factors. The petitioner's non-disclosure of material facts was also viewed adversely.

Conclusion: No interference with the order continuing the petitioner's suspension was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed and the order sustaining the suspension remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Continuation of suspension must be determined on the facts of each case, and may be justified where serious allegations are under active investigation and the employee's position enables possible influence over witnesses or evidence.

---