Suspension must be reviewed, and continued only through a fresh order.

The petitioner, an Assistant Commissioner (Excise) posted in Dewas, was suspended on 6 December 2025 after a liquor contractor died by suicide and allegedly left a video attributing his death to illegal demands by her.

She submitted that an FSL report showed the video had not been recorded on the deceased’s phone and that her suspension was politically motivated.

The State maintained that the allegations were serious and that departmental proceedings were pending; it also noted that she had not pursued the departmental appeal said to be available under Rule 23.

The deceased’s mother sought to intervene, but the Court rejected her application, treating the suspension dispute as one between employer and employee.

1. Whether the Court should determine the merits of the suspension order or confine its review to whether the suspension had been reviewed and should continue.

2. Whether the competent authority should be directed to review the petitioner’s suspension.

3. Whether the deceased’s mother could intervene in the service matter.

Relying on Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, the Court applied the principle that suspension—particularly before charges are formulated—is transitory and should ordinarily be of short duration.

If continued for an indeterminate period, or renewed without contemporaneously available sound reasons, it may become punitive; the authority must therefore review whether continuation is justified.

The Court also stated that judicial review in this context is limited to examining whether the suspension has been reviewed and whether review is required.

The State referred to a departmental appeal under Rule 23, but the Court did not decide the appeal’s effect on the petition.

The Court declined to decide the merits of the petitioner’s allegations about the video, political influence, or the basis for the original suspension, holding that its review was limited to the need for review of the continuing suspension.

Applying the principle that suspension should be temporary and of short duration, it concluded that the competent authority must reconsider whether continuation remained necessary and, if satisfied that it did, issue a fresh order to that effect.

It separately rejected the intervention application because the dispute concerned the employer–employee relationship.

It did not quash the suspension or decide its merits.

The intervention application filed by the deceased’s mother was rejected.