Prolonged suspension without departmental inquiry becomes punitive and is liable to be quashed.

The petitioner, a Head Assistant/Establishment Clerk with Jammu & Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. (JKPCC), was implicated as a co-accused in FIR No. 07/2011, registered by the Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, concerning the preparation of the service book of an employee allegedly appointed on the basis of a forged matriculation certificate.

Although the FIR was registered in 2011, no departmental or preliminary fact-finding inquiry was initiated against the petitioner for several years.

After the Vigilance investigation culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet before the Anti-Corruption Court, Anantnag, the Managing Director of JKPCC placed the petitioner under suspension by Order No. 168 of 2020 dated 18 December 2020.

The petitioner challenged the suspension, contending that it was belated, procedurally improper, and unsupported by any departmental inquiry.

During the pendency of the proceedings, he retired from service on 31 May 2021.

Whether the impugned suspension order was amenable to judicial review on the ground that it was arbitrary, procedurally improper, or based on irrelevant considerations.

Whether the petitioner’s prolonged suspension, in the absence of any departmental inquiry and notwithstanding the filing of the criminal charge-sheet and his subsequent retirement, could be sustained in law.

Whether the principles governing prolonged suspension laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India applied to the petitioner’s case.

The Court applied the principle of limited judicial review over administrative decisions, holding that interference is justified where the decision is illogical, procedurally improper, based on wholly irrelevant considerations, or so unreasonable that no rational authority could have reached it, as explained in Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. Anilbhai Nathubhai Patel, (2006) 8 SCC 200.

It relied on State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, AIR 1994 SC 2296, for the rule that suspension is not an automatic or routine measure but must be based on the gravity of the alleged misconduct, the nature of the allegations, and the public interest involved.

Under Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147, suspension must ordinarily be supported by a strong prima facie case involving charges that may warrant a major penalty.

The Court further applied Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, which held that suspension is transitory and should not ordinarily continue beyond three months where charges have not been served; if charges are served, any extension must be supported by a reasoned order, consistent with the employee’s dignity and right to a speedy conclusion of proceedings.

Although suspension is not itself a punishment, prolonged suspension without progress in disciplinary proceedings may acquire a punitive and stigmatic character.

The Court recognized that suspension and its continuation ordinarily lie within the employer’s domain and that judicial review in such matters is limited.

However, the petitioner had remained under suspension from December 2020, had retired on 31 May 2021, and was not subjected to any parallel departmental inquiry despite the passage of almost six years.

The pendency of the criminal trial did not justify indefinite suspension, particularly because no departmental proceedings were shown to exist that could be prejudiced by revocation of the suspension.

Applying Ajay Kumar Choudhary, the Court held that the prolonged suspension, unsupported by a charge-sheet or departmental inquiry and unexplained by any plausible reason, had ceased to be a temporary administrative measure and had effectively assumed a punitive and stigmatic character.

The respondents therefore failed to discharge their obligation to proceed expeditiously and in accordance with law.

The respondents were directed to notionally reinstate the petitioner within six weeks, settle the period of suspension, release all consequential benefits, and process his pensionary benefits in accordance with the applicable rules.

The writ petition and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly.