2024 (8) TMI 1623 - HC - Indian Laws

Suspension set aside after two-year delay where chargesheet issued July 23, 2024; suspension can't exceed three months without chargesheet

HC set aside the suspension order dated 03.08.2022 and allowed the petition, holding there was no justification to continue suspension for about two years ... Prayer for revocation of the suspension order - existence of material on record to suggest that the order of suspension suffers from any procedural impropriety or not - HELD THAT:- The orders do not reflect any reason towards continuance of the order of suspension for about two years. In the midst thereof, the petitioner has been issued a notice from the Vigilance Commission to explain the details of his property and expenditure incurred during a particular financial year and ultimately a chargesheet has been issued. In the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary [2015 (6) TMI 592 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within such period of the memorandum of charges/chargesheet is not served upon the delinquent officer/employee - In the present case the order of suspension was passed way back on 03.08.22 in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding and ultimately the chargesheet has been issued about two years thereafter on 23.07.24. There is no necessity to keep the petitioner under suspension any further and accordingly, the order of suspension dated 3.08.2022 is set aside - petition disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether continued suspension of a government employee for an extended period (about two years) without contemporaneous reasoned support in review committee orders is lawful or amounts to punitive suspension requiring judicial interference. 2. Whether non-furnishing of minutes of the Review Committee (upon RTI request) and lack of contemporaneous reasons vitiate renewals of suspension orders. 3. Whether prolonged delay between suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings and service of a chargesheet (two years here) violates principles governing the currency of suspension and the right to a speedy disposal of disciplinary proceedings under Article 21. 4. The extent to which a court should intervene in an ongoing departmental/tribunal proceeding when the tribunal remains seised of a challenge to suspension and whether granting relief by writ would amount to prejudging matters before the tribunal. 5. Whether the State may impose reasonable restrictions (including transfer) to prevent interference with disciplinary proceedings while revoking suspension. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Lawfulness of prolonged suspension without contemporaneous reasons Legal framework: Suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings is a protective, temporary measure and not punitive. It must ordinarily be of short duration and be supported by reasons; prolonged, indefinite suspension without reason can assume a punitive character. Subsistence allowance is payable during suspension. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on the principle articulated in the cited Supreme Court authority directing that suspension ordinarily should not extend beyond three months if charges are not served within that period (the three-month norm for currency of suspension where no chargesheet is served). Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined successive Review Committee orders renewing suspension and found them devoid of contemporaneous reasoned justification for continuation across multiple renewals spanning about two years. The absence of such reasons, combined with lengthy delay in filing charges, rendered the continuance of suspension unjustified. The protective purpose of suspension was thereby undermined. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where review renewals do not record contemporaneous reasons and suspension continues for an inordinate period (here ~2 years) without prompt framing/serving of charges, the suspension may be set aside as punitive and unjustified. Obiter - comments on the general duties of a model employer and the need for high probity in conduct are explanatory but not essential to the decision. Conclusion: The continued order of suspension was unlawful in the circumstances and was set aside. Issue 2 - Obligation to disclose Review Committee minutes and effect of non-disclosure Legal framework: Procedural fairness requires that renewals of suspension be supported by reasons and that relevant material communicating those reasons be discloseable to the affected employee, especially where the renewal adversely affects fundamental rights. Precedent treatment: The Court treated the failure to furnish minutes and contemporaneous reasons as contributing to the impermissibility of prolonged suspension; no distinct departure from precedent was made. Interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner sought minutes under RTI but did not receive them; the review orders on record lacked reasons. The Court treated non-furnishing and absence of reasons as indicative of mechanical, routine renewals rather than considered action, thereby undermining the legitimacy of continued suspension. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - non-disclosure of review reasons and absence of reasoned renewals may vitiate continued suspension; Obiter - procedural observations on RTI in the disciplinary context are explanatory. Conclusion: Failure to furnish minutes and absence of contemporaneous reasons weighed in favor of setting aside continued suspension. Issue 3 - Delay between suspension and chargesheet; Article 21 / right to speedy disposal Legal framework: Article 21 implies the right to a fair and reasonable procedure, including expedition in disciplinary proceedings; undue delay may convert protective suspension into punitive measure. The three-month guideline for currency of suspension pending service of chargesheet (as per the cited authority) is a controlling benchmark. Precedent treatment: The Court followed the three-month proposition from the cited Supreme Court authority, applying it to the facts to assess the reasonableness of the two-year interregnum before issuance of a chargesheet. Interpretation and reasoning: Given the two-year gap between the initial suspension and the chargesheet, and absent plausible contemporaneous justification for the delay, the Court found the delay inordinate and contrary to principles of expedition and fairness underpinning Article 21. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - substantial delay in serving charges without plausible justification renders continued suspension unreasonable and subject to judicial relief. Obiter - instructive comments on the State's duty to act expeditiously are ancillary. Conclusion: The inordinate delay warranted setting aside the suspension; disciplinary proceedings must proceed expeditiously. Issue 4 - Interference with ongoing tribunal proceedings; restraint against prejudging Legal framework: Courts ordinarily avoid prejudging matters that are sub judice before a competent tribunal; however, where writ jurisdiction is invoked and the statutory/constitutional rights are at stake, the court may grant appropriate interim or final relief if satisfied by material on record. Precedent treatment: The Court recognized opposing submissions that interference might prejudge the tribunal's domain but balanced that against the documentary record showing absence of reasons and the long delay in instituting formal charges. Interpretation and reasoning: Although the tribunal remained seised and had not granted interim relief, the High Court found that the material before it (successive review orders lacking reasons, failure to furnish minutes, prolonged delay) justified judicial intervention. The Court noted that arguments could be urged before the tribunal but concluded that retention of suspension served no legitimate purpose in the circumstances and that intervention would not improperly preclude the tribunal's adjudicatory role on merits of charges. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - a writ court may set aside continuation of suspension where the continuance is unsupported by reasons and where delay is inordinate, even if a tribunal is considering related challenges, provided intervention does not amount to prejudging disciplinary guilt. Obiter - procedural guidance on coordination between courts and tribunals is explanatory. Conclusion: Judicial intervention in revoking the suspension was appropriate despite the tribunal being seised; this did not amount to prejudging disciplinary liability. Issue 5 - Protective measures on revocation: transfer to prevent interference Legal framework: While revoking suspension, courts may impose protective conditions (e.g., transfer) to prevent interference with ongoing enquiries; the State retains power to take administrative measures reasonably necessary to safeguard the integrity of disciplinary proceedings. Precedent treatment: The Court permitted administrative measures short of suspension to prevent obstruction, consistent with principles allowing reasonable restrictions to protect investigatory processes. Interpretation and reasoning: To allay concerns that revocation might enable interference, the Court authorized the State to transfer the officer to an appropriate office to sever local/personal contacts, and directed the officer to cooperate so proceedings could be expedited. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - when suspension is set aside, the State may still take reasonable administrative steps (including transfer) to protect the disciplinary process; Obiter - directions as to cooperation and expeditious conclusion of proceedings are practical observations. Conclusion: The Court set aside suspension but allowed the State liberty to transfer the officer to prevent interference; the officer must cooperate and proceedings should be concluded expeditiously.