Prolonged suspension without periodic review requires a reasoned decision on its continuation or revocation.

The petitioner, a Clerk with the Indore Municipal Corporation, was allegedly caught accepting a bribe in a trap conducted by the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Indore, on 4 August 2021.

She was suspended on the same date.

Although the Lokayukta subsequently investigated the matter and filed a charge-sheet on 12 January 2026, the respondents did not review the suspension order.

The petitioner submitted representations relying on State Government circulars dated 28 January 2013, 30 September 2014 and 9 April 2019, but they remained unaddressed.

She therefore invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the suspension order and reinstatement.

Whether the petitioner’s prolonged suspension from 4 August 2021, without a review of the suspension order, could continue merely because the criminal prosecution arising from the trap case was pending.

Whether the competent authority was required to review the suspension and pass a reasoned order regarding its continuation or revocation.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It primarily relied on Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, which holds that suspension, particularly before the formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or temporary and should ordinarily be of short duration.

An indeterminate suspension, or its renewal without contemporaneous and sound reasons recorded on the file, may become punitive in nature.

Protracted suspension and repeated renewals should not become the norm.

The Court also considered the State Government circulars requiring review of suspension orders.

The Court found that the petitioner had remained under suspension for approximately five years without any review, despite repeated representations and the subsequent filing of the charge-sheet.

Applying Ajay Kumar Choudhary, the Court treated prolonged suspension and the absence of a contemporaneous review as requiring reconsideration, even though the allegations involved corruption and the criminal trial remained pending.

The pendency of the criminal case did not, by itself, dispense with the obligation of the competent authority to assess whether continued suspension remained justified on the reasons available on record.

Instead, it disposed of the petition with a direction to Respondent No. 2 to review the petitioner’s suspension order and, after considering the reasons available on record, pass an appropriate and reasoned order on whether the suspension should continue or be revoked.

The exercise was directed to be completed within two months from communication of the order.