Judicial intervention in pending disciplinary proceedings permitted where prima facie evidence shows non connection and irreparable prejudice; suspension revoked and inquiry expedited.

Court addressed scope of writ jurisdiction over ongoing departmental proceedings, holding that exceptional writ relief is available where prima facie material shows the charged official was not connected to the alleged act at the relevant time and continuation of suspension would cause irreparable prejudice; on that basis the suspension and consequential memorandum were revoked and the official reinstated. The court directed the disciplinary inquiry to be completed expeditiously (preferably by 31 August 2026), preserving the departmental authority to decide merits while protecting the respondent's service rights pending prompt conclusion of the inquiry.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether writ relief to quash suspension and related disciplinary steps could be granted at the stage when departmental proceedings have been initiated but not concluded; (ii) Whether the suspension order and consequent memorandum against the respondent should be revoked and the disciplinary inquiry directed to be completed within a specified time.

Issue (i): Whether judicial intervention is permissible in the pending departmental proceedings at the present stage.

Analysis: The issue involves examination of the timing and limits of writ jurisdiction in relation to ongoing disciplinary proceedings. The material shows that show-cause notice and articles of charge were issued and an internal inquiry report implicated several officials; however, the charge documents and service records were examined to determine the respondent's attachment to the charge at relevant times and whether exceptional circumstances justified interference prior to conclusion of the inquiry.

Conclusion: Writ relief is permissible in an exceptional case where prima facie material demonstrates that the charged official was not connected with the alleged acts at the relevant time and that the departmental process, if allowed to proceed without correction, would cause irreparable prejudice; accordingly, limited judicial intervention is warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the suspension order dated 26.07.2024, the consequential memorandum dated 07.09.2024 and the subsequent order dated 23.10.2024 should be revoked and whether the inquiry should be directed to be concluded within a time frame.

Analysis: The question requires comparison of assessment orders, appointment and promotion records to ascertain whether the respondent held the post alleged to have committed the distortion. The assessment orders of 22.08.2012 and 28.03.2015 bear the names of other officers and service records show the respondent was an inspector and promoted to superintendent only w.e.f. 02.02.2017. Given this prima facie material and the risk to service career, the appropriateness of revocation of suspension and directing completion of inquiry within a timeline was considered.

Conclusion: The suspension order and consequential memo are to remain revoked and the respondent shall continue in service; however, the inquiry shall be completed expeditiously, preferably by 31 August 2026. This disposition preserves the respondent's service rights while ensuring the departmental process is concluded without undue delay.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is disposed of by modifying the earlier order-the revocation of suspension stands and the respondent continues in service, while the disciplinary inquiry is directed to be concluded expeditiously within the specified timeframe.

Ratio Decidendi: Exceptional writ relief may be granted prior to completion of departmental proceedings where prima facie material shows the charged official was not responsible for the impugned act at the relevant time and where continuing suspension or ongoing proceedings would cause disproportionate or irreparable prejudice; in such cases courts may revoke suspension and direct expeditious completion of inquiry while leaving the inquiry's merits to the disciplinary authority.

---