Prolonged suspension without periodic review or progress in criminal trial is unsustainable and warrants reinstatement.

The petitioner, a Constable in the 26th Battalion, Special Armed Force, Guna, was placed under suspension on 13.01.2026 following the registration of FIR No. 1100/2025.

Although a reviewing authority revoked the suspension on 02.02.2026, Respondent No. 3 re-suspended the petitioner on 26.02.2026, citing procedural errors in the revocation.

The High Court had previously stayed the departmental proceedings on 09.04.2026.

On 29.06.2026, the respondents rejected the petitioner’s representation for reinstatement despite the lack of progress in the criminal trial.

The petitioner challenged this rejection, seeking quashing of the suspension and reinstatement to a non-sensitive post.

1. Whether the continued suspension of the petitioner for an indefinite period, despite no progress in the criminal trial and stayed departmental proceedings, is legally sustainable.

2. Whether the respondents failed to apply the principles governing the duration of suspension as established by the Supreme Court.

Statement identifying a key statute, principle, or precedent: The court primarily applied the principle that suspension should not be continued for an inordinate or indefinite period.

Statement on the doctrine derived from a case: Relying on Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months without a reasoned order for extension and service of a charge-sheet.

Statement on the doctrine derived from a case: Division Bench ruling in Vesta Akhadiya v. State of MP & Ors (relying on Leeladhar Songara v. State of MP) established that if an alleged offence is unrelated to official duties and the trial shows no progress, maintaining suspension while paying subsistence allowance is unsustainable.

The court observed that the petitioner had been under suspension since 13.01.2026 with no significant progress in the criminal trial, a delay not attributable to the petitioner.

Applying Vesta Akhadiya, the court noted that the respondents were paying a subsistence allowance without extracting work, which is contrary to the State’s own circulars regarding the review of suspension cases.

By referencing Ajay Kumar Choudhary, the court reasoned that the right to a speedy trial and human dignity is violated when suspension is used as a long-term fixture.

The court found that the respondents' rejection of the petitioner’s representation on 29.06.2026 ignored these established legal precedents, rendering the continued suspension illegal and arbitrary.

The final order or relief granted by the court: The petition was allowed; the court quashed the impugned order dated 29.06.2026 and set aside the original suspension order dated 13.01.2026.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner immediately and were granted the liberty to pass appropriate orders regarding the regularization of the suspension period only after the conclusion of the trial.