MP HC Orders Review Of Cleaner’s Suspension After 5 Years, Requires Reasoned Decision Within 2 Months

The petitioner, employed as a Cleaner in the respondent department, was placed under suspension by order dated 3 June 2021.

The judgment records that an FIR was registered against her on 11 August 2021 for various offences under the IPC and other enactments, and that she remained under suspension thereafter.

She sought review of her suspension through representations dated 24 December 2024, 3 July 2025 and 14 August 2026, but received no decision.

She petitioned for quashing of the suspension order and reinstatement with consequential benefits; the State opposed, citing the nature of the alleged offences.

Relying on Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, the Court noted that suspension is ordinarily a temporary measure and should be of short duration; prolonged suspension or repeated renewal without contemporaneous sound reasons may render it punitive.

The Supreme Court further directed that suspension should not ordinarily extend beyond three months if a memorandum of charges or chargesheet has not been served, and that, if one has been served, any extension must be supported by a reasoned order.

Applying these principles, the Court considered prolonged suspension potentially contrary to the interests of both employee and employer.

The petitioner had remained under suspension since 2021, and the respondents had not decided her repeated requests for review.

In light of Ajay Kumar Choudhary and the duration of the suspension, the Court held that the suspension required reconsideration.

It did not determine whether the petitioner should be reinstated; instead, it left that question to respondent No. 3, requiring a review and a reasoned decision on whether suspension should continue.

The Court did not grant the requested order quashing the suspension or direct reinstatement or payment of back wages.