Authorities must periodically review prolonged suspension and pass orders in accordance with law and the case’s merits.

The petitioner, S. Anuradha, an Inspector of Police under suspension, challenged the suspension order bearing RC.No.PR.II/19616/WZ/2022/WZO.No.680/2022 dated 21 October 2022, issued by the Joint Commissioner of Police, West Zone, Greater Chennai Police.

She sought quashing of the suspension order and reinstatement in a non-sensitive post.

The petitioner contended that she had remained under prolonged suspension since 21 October 2022 and that the disciplinary proceedings were almost complete.

The respondents submitted that two disciplinary proceedings were still pending, but fairly stated that the suspension would be reviewed in accordance with the applicable Rules.

The Inspector of Police, DVAC, Chennai, was suo motu impleaded as the third respondent.

Whether the petitioner’s prolonged suspension, commencing on 21 October 2022, should be quashed and whether she should be reinstated in a non-sensitive post.

Whether the respondents should be directed to review the suspension in light of the pendency and status of the disciplinary proceedings.

The Court applied the general principle that suspension must be reviewed by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable service rules and on the merits of the individual case, particularly where suspension has continued for a prolonged period.

The Court did not adjudicate the legality or merits of the disciplinary proceedings, nor did it cite any specific statutory provision, service rule, or judicial precedent.

The Court noted the petitioner’s contention that the suspension had continued for a substantial period and that the disciplinary proceedings were nearly complete.

At the same time, it took note of the respondents’ submission that two disciplinary proceedings remained pending.

Since the factual and legal merits of the disciplinary proceedings were not examined, the Court considered it appropriate not to directly quash the suspension or order reinstatement.

Instead, relying on the respondents’ assurance that the suspension would be reviewed, the Court directed the competent authority to undertake such review in accordance with the applicable Rules and the merits of the case.

The respondents were directed to review the petitioner’s suspension and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, the applicable Rules, and the merits of the case, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

The prayer to quash the suspension order and reinstate the petitioner was therefore not directly granted.

No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.