Prolonged suspension without departmental proceedings is arbitrary and violates fair procedure, even after bail is granted.

Suspension under service rules may be justified by detention or a pending criminal investigation, but it cannot be continued indefinitely without initiating disciplinary proceedings. The Court held that prolonged suspension, when the employer takes no bona fide steps to start departmental action, is inconsistent with fair procedure and Article 21. Grant of bail did not end the criminal case, but it removed any basis for keeping the employee out of service forever, especially where the employer already had sufficient material to proceed. Continued suspension was therefore arbitrary, the denial of reinstatement was unsustainable, and relief to resume duty was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an employee placed under suspension on account of criminal proceedings could be kept under prolonged suspension without initiating departmental proceedings; (ii) whether the order continuing suspension after grant of bail and the consequent denial of duty/reinstatement was legally sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether an employee placed under suspension on account of criminal proceedings could be kept under prolonged suspension without initiating departmental proceedings.

Analysis: Suspension under the service regulations was permissible on account of detention and pending criminal investigation, but the regulations also contemplated disciplinary proceedings. The continuing failure to commence departmental action could not be justified merely because the criminal case was pending. Prolonged suspension, without movement of the disciplinary process, was held to be inconsistent with the constitutional requirement of fair procedure and the protection of livelihood under Article 21.

Conclusion: The prolonged suspension could not be sustained merely on the ground of pendency of the criminal case, and the petitioner could not be kept out of service indefinitely without departmental proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether the order continuing suspension after grant of bail and the consequent denial of duty/reinstatement was legally sustainable.

Analysis: Grant of bail did not by itself conclude the criminal case, but it removed the factual basis for indefinite suspension. The authority's justification that documents were unavailable was rejected, as the record showed that the bank had already considered the matter and had enough material to proceed. In the absence of any bona fide initiation of disciplinary action, the continued suspension was found arbitrary and contrary to due process.

Conclusion: The order continuing suspension after bail was unsustainable, and the writ petitioner was entitled to relief against continued suspension and to be allowed to resume duty in accordance with the directions already issued.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the order setting aside the continued suspension was upheld on the footing that suspension cannot be prolonged indefinitely where the employer does not pursue departmental proceedings and the action offends the constitutional guarantee of fair procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: A suspension lawfully imposed under service regulations cannot be continued indefinitely without initiating disciplinary proceedings, because prolonged suspension without due process is arbitrary and inconsistent with Article 21.

---