Suspension cannot continue beyond three months unless the charge-sheet is issued and served within that period.

The Petitioners were faculty members of the Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics. Dr. Dilip Kajale had been appointed as Assistant Professor in 2014, regularised in 2024, and appointed Associate Dean in June 2024. Dr. Prakash Vankhade had been appointed Associate Professor in September 2023 and Associate Dean in January 2025.

Following an incident on 5 May 2025 involving a colleague, Mr. Naresh Bodkhe, Mr. Bodkhe lodged a complaint against the Petitioners on 6 May 2025. The Petitioners denied the allegations in their written explanations dated 10 May 2025.

On 17 October 2025, the Institute initiated disciplinary proceedings and suspended the Petitioners, granting them subsistence allowance and restricting their entry onto the Institute’s premises.

No charge-sheet was issued or served within three months of the suspension. The three-month period expired on 17 January 2026.

The charge-sheets were subsequently issued on 16 April 2026, after the Executive Council approved their issuance at its meeting held on 20 March 2026.

On 4 June 2026, the Chancellor directed that the inquiry proceedings continue.

The Petitioners challenged both the suspension orders and the continuation of the inquiry, but ultimately pressed only the challenge to the continued operation of the suspension orders.

Whether a suspension order can continue beyond three months where the charge-sheet has not been issued and/or served within that period and no reasoned order extending the suspension was passed during that period?

Whether the Government Resolution dated 22 April 2025 permitted the Institute to continue the Petitioners’ suspension beyond three months in the absence of a timely charge-sheet or a timely decision extending the suspension?

The Court applied the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months where the memorandum of charges or charge-sheet has not been served within that period; where the charge-sheet is served, any extension of suspension must be supported by a reasoned order.

The Court also relied on Kiran Ramesh Waghela v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 14127, which held that a suspension order extending beyond three months without service of a charge-sheet cannot remain operative.

Clause 1(A)(i) of the Government Resolution dated 22 April 2025 similarly required reinstatement where a departmental or judicial inquiry had not commenced within three months of suspension, while any permissible extension had to be decided within that period and for a minimum, limited duration.

The Court found that the charge-sheets were neither issued nor served within three months of the suspension orders dated 17 October 2025; the relevant period expired on 17 January 2026.

The Institute’s explanation—that the delay resulted from the Executive Council’s decision-making process—was recorded only in the charge-sheets issued on 16 April 2026 and was therefore provided after expiry of the statutory or legally prescribed period.

Applying Ajay Kumar Choudhary, the Court held that such a post facto explanation could not sustain the continued suspension and was, in any event, unsatisfactory.

The Court further held that the Government Resolution did not authorise an automatic extension beyond three months. Its provisions presupposed that the decision to extend suspension had been taken within the initial three-month period; otherwise, reinstatement was mandatory.

The subsequent continuation of the disciplinary inquiry did not validate the already-lapsed suspension, although the inquiry itself could proceed independently in accordance with law.

The suspension orders dated 17 October 2025 were quashed and set aside, and the Institute was directed to reinstate both Petitioners in the positions they occupied before their suspension.

The disciplinary inquiries were permitted to continue in accordance with the applicable Rules and principles of natural justice.

The Writ Petitions were disposed of without any order as to costs.