Suspension pending disciplinary action fails where enquiry is already complete and the order is punitive and unsupported by facts.

Suspension proceedings under service rules were found unsustainable where the departmental enquiries had already been completed, no prior show cause notice or charge memo was issued, and the employee was denied the procedural safeguards required before further disciplinary action. The Court also treated the suspension as punitive because it rested on generalized allegations and enquiry material unrelated to the employee's actual posting, showing malice in law and non-application of mind. On those facts, the suspension order was quashed for want of due process and for lacking a real factual foundation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned suspension proceedings could be sustained when the departmental enquiries had already been completed and the procedural safeguards under the service rules were not followed; (ii) Whether the suspension was liable to be interfered with as being punitive and vitiated by malice in law.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned suspension proceedings could be sustained when the departmental enquiries had already been completed and the procedural safeguards under the service rules were not followed.

Analysis: The suspension was issued after two enquiry reports were already in existence. The record showed no prior show cause notice or charge memo to the petitioner, and no opportunity to participate in the enquiries. The procedural scheme under the CCA Rules required observance of the prescribed disciplinary process, including action on the inquiry report and opportunity to respond before further action. A suspension order under the rule governing suspension pending contemplation or pendency of proceedings was held inapplicable on the facts, because the enquiries had already been concluded.

Conclusion: The suspension order was not sustainable and was liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the suspension was liable to be interfered with as being punitive and vitiated by malice in law.

Analysis: The impugned action was found to have been built on generalized allegations and on enquiry material connected with a unit in which the petitioner had not worked during the relevant period. The Court treated the impugned action as lacking a real factual foundation germane to the petitioner and as having been used as a punitive measure rather than as a bona fide administrative suspension. In those circumstances, the action was held to suffer from malice in law and non-application of mind.

Conclusion: The suspension was vitiated as punitive and arbitrary, and the impugned proceedings were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were allowed and the suspension proceedings were set aside for want of due process and on account of their punitive character.

Ratio Decidendi: A suspension order cannot be sustained when the departmental enquiry is already complete, the delinquent is denied the procedural safeguards mandated by the service rules, and the order is shown to be punitive or unsupported by a real factual basis.

---