Competent authority must decide pending suspension-revocation representation within 45 days without prejudging its merits.

The petitioner, an Accountant at District Hospital, Sukma, was placed under suspension by the Collector, Sukma, on 16 December 2024.

He was subsequently acquitted by the competent Criminal Court on 17 March 2026. Following his acquittal, he submitted a representation seeking revocation of his suspension and reinstatement with consequential benefits.

The Divisional Commissioner, Bastar Division, and the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sukma, forwarded the representation to the competent authority.

The petitioner approached the High Court alleging inaction on his representation and seeking revocation of the suspension order and reinstatement.

The State submitted that the representation, marked Annexure P/7, was pending consideration before the Joint Director, Health Services, Bastar Division, and would be decided within 45 days.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for immediate revocation of his suspension and reinstatement following his acquittal in the criminal case.

Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending representation for revocation of suspension within a prescribed period.

The Court applied the principle that a pending representation concerning revocation of suspension must be considered and decided by the competent authority strictly in accordance with law.

The Court did not lay down or apply any specific statutory provision or judicial precedent and expressly preserved the competent authority’s independent discretion on the merits of revocation and reinstatement.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s representation had not yet been decided, notwithstanding his acquittal and the forwarding of his request by the concerned authorities.

Since the State acknowledged that Annexure P/7 remained pending before the Joint Director, the Court considered it appropriate to require a decision on the representation rather than itself determining whether the suspension should be revoked or whether reinstatement and consequential benefits should be granted.

The direction was therefore limited to consideration of the representation in accordance with law, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s entitlement to revocation of suspension, reinstatement, or consequential benefits, and that the competent authority must decide the matter independently.