After Employee’s Arrest In Dispute With Daughter, MP HC Orders Reasoned Decision On Whether His Suspension Should Continue

In brief

The question

Whether the respondents should reconsider the petitioner’s suspension, imposed on account of his arrest arising from a personal dispute, and determine whether it remains necessary.

The court held

The petition was disposed of with directions that the petitioner may submit a detailed representation to respondent No. 3 within one week, and that respondent No. 3 must consider it and issue a reasoned order either withdrawing the suspension or continuing it, consistently with Ajay Kumar Choudhary, within four weeks of receiving the representation.

It also directed

The Court did not itself order reinstatement.

01Facts

The petitioner, a permanent Class-IV employee of the Indore Municipal Corporation, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 370/2026, registered under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, following a dispute with his daughter.

¶ 1

He remained in custody for two days and was granted bail on 6 August 2026.

¶ 1

The petitioner informed the Corporation of his arrest and release on 7 August 2026.

¶ 1

By order dated 28 September 2026, the Corporation placed him under suspension on account of his arrest.

¶ 1

He challenged that order, contending that the dispute was unrelated to his official duties and that continued suspension was unnecessary.

¶ 1–3

02Issues

i.Whether the respondents should reconsider the petitioner’s suspension, imposed on account of his arrest arising from a personal dispute, and determine whether it remains necessary.

¶ 4

ii.Whether the petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to make a representation and receive a reasoned decision on whether suspension should be withdrawn or continued.

¶ 5

03Law Applied

In Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, the Supreme Court held that suspension, particularly before charges are formulated, is ordinarily temporary and should be of short duration; prolonged suspension or renewal without contemporaneous reasons may render it punitive.

¶ 3

It further directed that suspension should not ordinarily extend beyond three months if a memorandum of charges or chargesheet has not been served; if charges have been served, any extension must be supported by a reasoned order.

¶ 3

The present order also records that the petitioner’s suspension followed his arrest for an offence under Section 108 of the BNS, 2023.

¶ 2

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 108

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the suspension was imposed because of the petitioner’s arrest arising from a dispute with his daughter, and that the petitioner himself had informed the Municipal Corporation about the matter.

¶ 4

In light of Ajay Kumar Choudhary, the respondents were required to assess whether continuing the suspension was necessary and, if so, to provide reasons.

¶ 3–5

The Court left that assessment to the competent authority rather than directing immediate reinstatement.

¶ 3–5