Suspension order issued without mandatory preliminary enquiry and adherence to service rules is legally unsustainable.

The Petitioner, a Medical Officer with the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), was suspended by an order dated 07.05.2026 with retrospective effect from 04.05.2026

This followed a complaint by a former Parliamentarian regarding irregularities in birth certificates and a subsequent FIR where the Petitioner was notably not named as an accused

Procedurally, the Corporation had initiated a preliminary enquiry in 2025 with three charges, then discarded it on 09.03.2026 to issue a fresh memorandum with an additional fourth charge for a full-fledged departmental enquiry

Before the fresh charges were served or a new preliminary enquiry conducted, the suspension order was issued

The Petitioner challenged the suspension as being procedurally flawed and influenced by external political pressure

Rule 4(A) provides the source of power for an Appointing or Disciplinary Authority to place an employee under suspension when a proceeding is contemplated or pending

Rule 4(B) mandates a "Preliminary Enquiry" procedure, specifically Rule 4(B)(5), which requires the Competent Authority to perusal the preliminary enquiry report and material to decide whether a prima-facie case exists and whether suspension pending a departmental enquiry is necessary

The court applied the "Golden Rule of Interpretation," holding that provisions must be read such that no part is rendered otiose or nugatory

The Court rejected the Corporation’s contention that Rule 4(A) grants unfettered stand-alone power to suspend. It reasoned that Rule 4(A) identifies who holds the power, while Rule 4(B) prescribes the manner in which that power must be exercised

The Court observed that the Corporation had abandoned its initial preliminary enquiry and reverted to the square-one stage of Rule 4(B)(2) by framing new charges. By skipping the mandatory steps in Rule 4(B)(4) and (5)—which require a report and a considered decision on the necessity of suspension based on that report—the Corporation acted with "undue haste"

The Court noted that the suspension appeared to be a reaction to a former Parliamentarian’s premature announcement of the suspension on 02.05.2026, rather than a result of the internal procedural safeguards intended to prevent unnecessary suspensions

The High Court quashed and set aside the suspension order dated 07.05.2026 and directed the Petitioner’s reinstatement with full salary for the suspension period. However, the Court clarified that the Corporation remains at liberty to proceed with the fresh departmental enquiry under the 2015 Rules from the stage of Rule 4(B)(4) onwards