Prolonged suspension is impermissible; departmental enquiry must conclude within six months or the employee shall be reinstated.

The applicant, a Medical Officer, was placed under suspension on 02.11.2024 following an FIR registered under Section 109 of the BNS, 2023, and the Arms Act

The Department initiated an inquiry on 17.04.2025 to determine if the criminal charges linked to his official duties

The applicant challenged the suspension in O.A. No. 1309/2025. That O.A. was disposed of on 25.08.2025, but the applicant filed the present Review Application (R.A.) claiming that a specific oral direction given in court—stipulating that the applicant would be deemed reinstated if the inquiry was not completed within six months—was omitted from the final written order due to a typographical error

1. Whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to modify its previous order under review to correct an apparent omission or clerical error

2. Whether the continuation of the applicant's suspension should be subject to a time-bound completion of the departmental inquiry

The Tribunal applied the limited scope of review, holding that while a review is not a "re-hearing," clerical mistakes or accidental slips can be corrected to reflect the court's real intention

The court cited Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015), which established that suspension must not be prolonged without due review or serving a memo of charges

State of Tamil Nadu v. Promod Kumar, IPS (2018), which emphasized the necessity of concluding disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable period

suspension is not a punitive measure and cannot continue indefinitely

The Tribunal noted that the Department had already constituted an inquiry committee, creating an obligation to act with promptitude

It reasoned that indefinite suspension violates service jurisprudence as it affects an employee's reputation and livelihood

The court found that adding a "deemed reinstatement" clause was a necessary clarification to make the order "workable" and did not constitute a reopening of the case on merits

By balancing the employer's right to inquire with the employee's right against open-ended suspension, the Tribunal determined that a six-month window was reasonable for completing the domestic inquiry

It held that the respondents must complete the inquiry within six months. If not completed, the suspension order dated 02.11.2024 shall be "deemed quashed" and the applicant reinstated with consequential benefits

the court clarified that such reinstatement is not an exoneration, and the Department remains free to conclude the inquiry and take action based on its findings or the criminal trial