The suspension of an employee is harmful to his rights and should not be extended indefinitely. The selective suspension perpetuated indefinitely in circumstances where other involved persons had not been subjected to any scrutiny. The High of Court Jharkhand in the case of Satya Prakash vs. the State of Jharkhand [W.P. (S) No. 2194 of 2020] by Single Bench consisting of Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi.
The facts are the petitioner has been put under suspension under Rule 9 of the Rules, 2016 alleging therein that on the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner on the ground of non-residing at the Circle Headquarter and on a charge of unauthorizedly checking and collecting fine from vehicles outside his jurisdictional area, a recommendation has been made to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that without following the principles of natural justice, the suspension order has been passed. He further submits that due to that the petitioner has been put irreparable loss as his prestige is downgraded in the society. He also submits that more than 8 months period has lapsed and despite that, the petitioner is still under suspension and no revocation order has been passed.
Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that there is a serious allegation against the petitioner and that is why the petitioner has been put under suspension. She further submits that now the departmental proceeding has already been initiated and that will be completed within a time frame and the petitioner may cooperate in the department proceeding.
Relying on this court judgment O.P. Gupta v. Union of India, the court held that “the suspension of an employee is injurious to his interests and must not be continued for an unreasonably long period. Therefore, an order of suspension should not be lightly passed.”
Relying on another judgment of the apex court K. Sukhendar Reddy vs. the State of A.P., held that “which is topical in that it castigates selective suspension perpetuated indefinitely in circumstances where other involved persons had not been subjected to any scrutiny. Reliance on this decision is in the backdrop of the admitted facts that all the persons who have been privy to the making of the office notes have not proceeded against departmentally.”
The Court finds that admittedly “the petitioner was suspended. It is also an admitted fact that the enquiry has not been completed as yet. Given the resolution of the Personnel and Administrative Department, the enquiry needs to be completed within 105 days. Rule 9(6)(C) has not been exercised by the authority for extending the suspension order concerning the petitioner.”