Rajasthan High Court Issues Guidelines On Suspension Of Govt Employees Where Disciplinary Proceedings Are Contemplated, Pending

The Rajasthan High Court issued guidelines to be followed by competent authorities/State's head of departments in cases where delinquent employees were suspended either in contemplation of or pending departmental proceedings under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules.

Justice Arun Monga directed the State to ensure that all the competent authorities that were vested with the power to suspend, adhere to a reasonable time limit of 30 days from the date of the suspension order, to initiate disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge sheet or show cause notice.

Prolonged inaction by State reflects serious administrative negligence

"there has to be timely initiation and completion of disciplinary proceedings, with a general administrative instruction to dispose of such matters within six months. Prolonged inaction in this behalf by respondents rather shows that the shoe is on the other foot. It reflects serious administrative negligence; undermines the purpose of suspension as a preventive or precautionary measure and rather makes it a punitive one...one cannot be unmindful that though suspension is neither described nor is to be resorted as a punishment under the Rules, but stark reality is that it carries grave and far reaching adverse consequences for the affected employee. Suspension casts a cloud over the employee's reputation and creates a dark social shadow, with lingering doubts over their professional integrity and conduct. The prolonged absence from active duties also diminishes the employee's professional standing and morale. Moreover, the delinquent employee is forced to survive only on a subsistence allowance to meet basic needs, leading to financial strain and psychological distress for the individual and their dependents. Entire family thus suffers. Furthermore, unwarranted and prolonged suspension not only wastes public funds but also reflects poorly on administrative efficiency". 

Keeping employee in suspension is a penalty violates natural justice

It observed that keeping an employee under suspension for an indefinite period virtually "amounts to a penalty, contravening the principle of natural justice". The court further underscored that any suspension beyond a reasonable period or inordinate period due to administrative delays unless justified by sound and convincing reasons in writing, "would ordinarily then be viewed as punitive without there being any punishment order, and thus liable to be quashed”.

The Court was hearing a bunch of petitions filed by delinquent employees who were put under suspension in contemplation of or pending disciplinary proceedings, with prolonged inaction on part of the State. The petitioners had remained under suspension for inordinate times ranging from 1.5 to 6 years, within no action on part of the State.

After perusing the records and hearing the contentions, the Court opined that there was a “flagrant violation” of Rule 13 of the Rules because long time had passed since the suspension of the petitioners and no action was taken by the State.

It also underscored upon the crucial distinction between 'contemplated' and 'pending' disciplinary proceedings is crucial, stating that a disciplinary proceeding is considered 'pending' when a formal show cause notice or charge sheet has been issued, whereas 'contemplated' indicates an earlier stage. The Rule 13(1)(a) empowers authorities to suspend a Government servant when disciplinary proceedings are 'contemplated' or 'pending', it said. 

Guidelines where suspension is ordered in contemplation of or in pending proceedings

In this background, the Court framed the following guidelines to be adhered to by the competent authorities or HoDs of the State in cases where suspensions were made in contemplation of or pending departmental proceedings.

1. Purpose of Suspension: Suspension is not meant as a punishment but a precautionary measure to protect evidence, prevent witness influence, and ensure disciplinary proceedings. It should be used only when absolutely necessary.
2. Discretionary yet severe: Despite not being prescribed as a punitive measure, suspension had serious repercussions, affecting an employee's morale, reputation and financial stability.
3. Prudent Exercise of Authority: Authorities must act with utmost caution, considering all relevant facts before ordering suspension. The decision should be justified by the need to protect evidence and witnesses.
4. Timely Disciplinary Action: If an employee is suspended in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, those must begin immediately after suspension and be conducted promptly.
5. Define Timelines: Specific deadlines should be set for every stage of proceedings, including as below:

                -Initiation: Issuance of charge sheet or show cause notice

                -Response: Submission of the employee's reply

                -Decision: Review of the reply and determination of further action.

                -Inquiry: If necessary, initiation and conclusion of a departmental inquiry.

                -Resolution: Submission and review of the inquiry report, followed by a final decision by disciplinary authority.

          6. Monitoring & Compliance: A mechanism should be established to ensure adherence to these timelines, with periodic reviews and remedial actions, including               penalties for defaulters or revocation of unnecessary suspensions.

The Court clarified that these guidelines shall be applicable only in cases where disciplinary proceedings were either pending or contemplated, and excluded all such cases of suspension which were due to either arrest in a criminal proceedings or penalty in any criminal investigation and/or criminal trial.

Chargesheet will be issued not beyond 30 days from suspension order

"It is, therefore, directed that where there are no criminal proceedings pending, but a Government servant is suspended in contemplation of departmental proceedings, forthwith steps shall be taken for initiation of disciplinary proceedings by issuance of charge sheet or show-cause notice as the case may be, but the same shall not be later than 30 days with effect from the date of suspension order. In case charge sheet cannot be issued, then one extension of another 30 days shall be permissible provided reasons in writing be recorded and conveyed to the suspended Government servant. The consequence of non-adherence to the 30 days' time-limit or 60 days, as the case may be, shall necessarily lead to an indefeasible right to seek revocation of the suspension order at the instance of the suspended Government servant upon his approaching the suspending authority or by way of filing an appeal under Rule 22," it directed. 

Hence, the Court directed the Government to take appropriate steps to sensitize the concerned authorities about the guidelines as well as the mandamus.

Accordingly, the petitions were allowed and the suspension orders against the petitioners were set aside, directing their reinstatement within 30 days within liberty to the State to continue the pending or contemplated disciplinary proceedings.

Title: Naresh Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 116

Click Here To Read/Download Order