Aided-institution employees cannot be suspended for detention absent disciplinary proceedings.

The petitioner, Principal-in-Charge-cum-Lecturer in Odia at Chitalo Degree Mahavidyalaya, Jajpur, was arrested in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 40 dated 31 December 2025 for alleged offences under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409/120-B IPC.

He remained in judicial custody from 2 January 2026 to 9 January 2026, allegedly for more than 48 hours. On that basis, the Sub-Collector-cum-President of the Governing Body placed him under suspension by order dated 7 January 2026 and sought approval from the Higher Education Department.

The suspension continued without approval of the Director of Higher Education or the Secretary to Government beyond the prescribed period of thirty days.

The petitioner challenged the suspension, contending that employees of aided educational institutions could not be suspended merely because they had remained in custody for more than 48 hours, particularly when no disciplinary proceeding had been initiated or contemplated.

1. Whether an employee of an aided educational institution may be suspended merely because he was detained in judicial custody for more than 48 hours by applying Rule 12(2) of the Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962.

2. Whether, under Rule 21(2) of the Odisha Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members and Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974, the Governing Body may suspend such an employee without initiation or contemplation of disciplinary proceedings and beyond thirty days without approval of the competent authority.

Rule 21(2) of the 1974 Rules governs disciplinary action and suspension of employees of aided educational institutions. It requires prior approval of the Inspector or Director for suspension and permits the Managing Committee or Governing Body to place an employee under suspension for thirty days pending such approval only “at the initiation of disciplinary proceedings”.

The Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962, including the deemed-suspension provision applicable upon detention for more than 48 hours, do not apply to employees of aided educational institutions, who are not ipso facto Government servants.

In Adikanda Jena v. State of Orissa, (1990) 1 OLR 234, the Court held that suspension under the 1974 Rules must be connected with the initiation or active contemplation of disciplinary proceedings and that the Governing Body’s power of suspension is circumscribed by the second proviso to Rule 21(2).

The suspension order expressly proceeded on the sole ground that the petitioner had remained in judicial custody for more than 48 hours.

The Court found no charge, statement of imputation, or disciplinary proceeding initiated or contemplated against him under Chapter VI of the 1974 Rules. Since the 1962 Rules were inapplicable to employees of aided institutions, the petitioner could not be subjected to deemed suspension merely by reason of his detention. Further, Rule 21(2) authorised suspension pending approval only for thirty days and only at the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The continued suspension without approval of the competent authority, and in the absence of any disciplinary proceeding, was therefore contrary to the governing statutory framework and the binding principle in Adikanda Jena.

The suspension order dated 7 January 2026 was set aside, the writ petition was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to be restored to service with immediate effect.