Court partially grants appeal, reinstates suspension, affirms time limit for criminal proceedings.

The court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the revocation of suspension and the directive to post the Respondent in a non-sensitive position. The court affirmed the direction for the Chief Judicial Magistrate to conclude the criminal proceedings within four months. The writ appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the connected miscellaneous petition closed without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of prolonged suspension.
2. Applicability of the Ajay Kumar Choudhary judgment.
3. Validity of the suspension in the context of pending criminal proceedings.
4. Directions for the conclusion of criminal proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Prolonged Suspension:

The Respondent, a Junior Engineer, was placed under deemed suspension on 13.01.2017 following an arrest for demanding illegal gratification. The suspension continued for over three years, prompting the Respondent to challenge it. The court examined the Full Bench judgment in *S. Ravi and Others v. District Collector and Others*, which highlighted that prolonged suspension without review is improper. The judgment suggested the need for legislation to regulate suspension periods. It emphasized that keeping a government servant under indefinite suspension without periodic review violates the right to public employment guaranteed under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India.

2. Applicability of the Ajay Kumar Choudhary Judgment:

The Respondent's counsel relied on *Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India*, where the Supreme Court held that suspension should not extend beyond three months if the charge sheet is not served. If served, a reasoned order must justify the extension. The judgment aimed to safeguard human dignity and ensure a speedy trial. However, the court noted that in *Ajay Kumar Choudhary*, the appellant had been served with a charge sheet before the judgment, and the suspension was not set aside despite exceeding three months. The court in *Director General of Police v. T. Kamarajan* clarified that *Ajay Kumar Choudhary* does not establish an absolute rule against suspensions extending beyond three months, especially when a charge sheet has been filed.

3. Validity of Suspension in the Context of Pending Criminal Proceedings:

The principal question was whether the suspension should be revoked given the pending criminal proceedings. The court acknowledged that the Respondent was being prosecuted for corruption, and the charge sheet had been filed. The law on suspension, as laid down in *R.P. Kapur v. Union of India* and *Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal*, supports suspension pending inquiry, provided subsistence allowance is paid. The court held that there is no absolute rule on the duration of suspension, especially in cases involving pending criminal proceedings. The decision to suspend should consider the nature of charges and the ongoing criminal process.

4. Directions for the Conclusion of Criminal Proceedings:

The learned single Judge had directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to conclude the criminal proceedings within four months. The court found this direction justified and did not warrant interference. However, the court disagreed with the revocation of the suspension and the directive to post the Respondent in a non-sensitive post. Given the Respondent's position as an Assistant Engineer, finding a non-sensitive post was deemed impractical.

Conclusion:

The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the revocation of suspension and the directive to post the Respondent in a non-sensitive post. The court affirmed the direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to conclude the criminal proceedings within four months from the date of receipt of the judgment. The writ appeal was disposed of on these terms, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed with no costs.

---