Suspension order set aside where alleged misconduct was prima facie unrelated to the officer's posting and leave period.

The suspension was set aside because the admitted chronology showed the alleged misconduct was prima facie unconnected with the period when the writ petitioner was on leave, and the disputed set-off was said to have been claimed later when she was not posted at the concerned office. The complaint arose on 29.05.2023, the petitioner remained on child care leave and medical leave from 01.06.2023 to 22.08.2023, and the later allegations related to December 2023 to March 2024. On that basis, continuance of the suspension was held unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suspension order passed against the writ petitioner was justified and liable to be sustained.

Analysis: The writ petition challenged the suspension order on the footing that the alleged irregularity related to a period when the writ petitioner was on leave and was later transferred, while the disputed set-off was stated to have been claimed much later. On the admitted chronology, the complaint regarding the firm arose on 29.05.2023, the writ petitioner remained on child care leave and medical leave from 01.06.2023 to 22.08.2023, and the set-off was alleged to have been claimed during December 2023 to March 2024, when she was not posted at the concerned office. In these circumstances, the Court formed a prima facie view that continuance of the suspension was not justified.

Conclusion: The suspension order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the admitted facts show that the alleged misconduct is prima facie unconnected with the period of suspension and the officer was not posted at the relevant place when the later alleged acts occurred, continuance of suspension is unjustified.

---