Dropped disciplinary charges without inquiry render suspension wholly unjustified, requiring duty treatment under FR 54B(3).

The petitioner, a retired Joint Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Madras, was placed under suspension after disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and charges were framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

After considering his explanation, the disciplinary authority dropped the charges without conducting a departmental enquiry by proceedings dated 3 February 2025.

The petitioner’s pending application for voluntary retirement was thereafter accepted, and he was permitted to retire voluntarily with effect from 3 February 2025.

However, by Official Memorandum dated 19 August 2025, the period of suspension was adjusted against his unearned leave and he was granted only half pay for that period.

The petitioner challenged that order and sought regularisation of the suspension period as duty, along with consequential monetary and leave-salary benefits.

Whether, after the disciplinary charges were dropped without conducting an enquiry, the petitioner’s period of suspension could be adjusted against unearned leave and regulated by payment of only half pay.

Whether the suspension period was required to be regularised as duty for all purposes under Rule 54B(3) of the Fundamental Rules, with consequential monetary benefits.

The Court applied Rule 54B(3) of the Fundamental Rules, which governs the treatment of a period of suspension when disciplinary proceedings conclude and requires the authority to determine the employee’s entitlement to pay and allowances in accordance with the applicable circumstances.

The Court held that where charges are dropped without an enquiry, and the employee’s explanation is accepted, there is no basis to treat the suspension as justified; the period must consequently be regularised as duty for all purposes.

The disciplinary proceedings had been initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, but the charges were ultimately dropped.

The Court noted that although the charges were serious, the disciplinary authority had expressly dropped them after considering the petitioner’s explanation, and no enquiry had commenced or been conducted.

In those circumstances, the respondents could not independently continue to treat the suspension as justified merely by referring to the gravity of the original charges.

Applying Rule 54B(3), the Court held that an assessment of whether suspension was justified could arise where an enquiry had been completed and the employee had been exonerated; however, where the charges were dropped at the threshold without an enquiry, the suspension was wholly unjustified.

Therefore, adjustment of the suspension period against unearned leave and payment of only half pay violated the Fundamental Rules.

It directed the respondents to regularise the entire suspension period as duty for all purposes and to settle the petitioner’s eligible monetary benefits in accordance with the applicable rules as expeditiously as possible.