Employee’s Suspension Cannot Extend Endelssly Without Disciplinary Proceedings Merely Due To Pendency Of Criminal Case: Madras High Court

The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed that the employers could not continuously take a stand that it is not conducive to revoke the suspension of the employee while pendency of the criminal case. The court added that in every quarter of the year, the employer is to review the necessity for extending the suspension.

“If these kind of cases where without initiating any disciplinary proceedings merely on the basis of the pendency of the criminal cases if the Government employee is suspended, such a suspension cannot be extended endlessly without any reason. In this context, every quarter of the year i.e., at the end of third month, the employer has to review the necessity for extending the suspension,” the court said.

In the present case, the employee, who was working as Special Sub-Inspector in the police department was allegedly caught red-handed for receipt of bribe by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department and was suspended. Though he had preferred an appeal against the suspension order, it was rejected and the further appeal to the office of Joint Commissioner of Police was also rejected.

The court noted that in all the rejection orders, the reason given by the authorities for not revoking the suspension was pendency of criminal cases. The authorities had said that the once the case was complete, a decision would be taken accordingly and that till such time it was not conducive to reinstate the employee.

When the employee approached the High Court, a single judge had directed the State to post the employee in any of the non-sensitive post. Hence, the authorities preferred an appeal.

While dismissing this appeal, the court noted that the employee was on the verge of his superannuation before which some decision had to be taken as to whether disciplinary action separately has to be taken against him, for which a charge has to be framed, otherwise on superannuation whether the services of the employee has to be retained for the purpose of taking disciplinary action in future depending upon the decision to be made by the Trial Court. For this purpose, the court felt that it was necessary and inevitable to revoke the suspension of the employee.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan Additional Government Pleader

Counsel for the Respondent: No Appearance

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 296

Case Title: The Director General of Police v D Jayakumar

Case No: W.A.No.1657 of 2019