Premveer Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The writ petition is directed against the order of suspension dated 28.06.2008 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit giving present status of inquiry. It is stated that oral inquiry is concluded and the inquiry report was submitted on 30.01.2009, but thereafter no final order has been passed.

Moreover a perusal of the inquiry report shows that it was held as a preliminary inquiry and there also the charges were not found proved.

Be that as it may, it is evident that the Petitioner was placed under suspension for last more two and a half years without even issuing charge-sheet to him till date.

Learned Standing Counsel stated that he has received instruction that proceeding under Rule 14(1) of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 is contemplated but he could not tell whether even a charge-sheet has been issued or not.

The order of suspension pending in a contemplated inquiry by itself is not a punishment but in case it is prolonged without initiation or completion of inquiry, it may become punitive with the passage of time. Whether such a prolonged suspension can be held valid and justified and whether the Respondents can be allowed to keep an employee under suspension for an indefinite period is the moot question need to be answered in this case. The answer is an emphatic No.

This question has already been answered by this Court in Smt. Anshu Bharti Vs. State of U.P. and Basic Shiksha Parishad, and in paras 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 this Court has observed as under:

...The prolonged suspension of the Petitioner is clearly unjust and unwarranted. The question deals with the prolonged agony and mental torture of a suspended employee where inquiry either has not commenced or proceed with snail pace. Though suspension in a contemplated or pending inquiry is not a punishment but this is a different angle of the matter, which is equally important and needs careful consideration. A suspension during contemplation of departmental inquiry or pendency thereof by itself is not a punishment if resorted to by the competent authority to enquire into the allegations levelled against the employee giving him an opportunity of participation to find out whether the allegations are correct or not with due diligence and within a reasonable time. In case, allegations are not found correct, the employee is reinstated without any loss towards salary, etc., and in case the charges are proved, the disciplinary authority passes such order as provided under law. However, keeping an employee under suspension, either without holding any enquiry, or in a prolonged enquiry is unreasonable. It is neither just nor in larger public interest. A prolonged suspension by itself is penal. Similarly an order of suspension at the initial stage may be valid fulfilling all the requirements of law but may become penal or unlawful with the passage of time, if the disciplinary inquiry is unreasonably prolonged or no inquiry is initiated at all without there being any fault or obstruction on the part of the delinquent employee. No person can be kept under suspension for indefinite period since during the period of suspension he is not paid full salary. He is also denied the enjoyment of status and therefore admittedly it has some adverse effect in respect of his status, life style and reputation in society. A person under suspension is looked with suspicion in the society by the persons with whom he meets in his normal discharge of function.

A Division Bench of this Court in Gajendra Singh v. High Court of Gajendra Singh Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, observed as under:

We need not forget that when a Government officer is placed under suspension, he is looked with suspicious eyes not only by his collogues and friends but by public at large too.

Disapproving unreasonable prolonged suspension, the Apex Court in Public Service Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2003 (1) UPLBEC 780 (SC) observed as under:

If a suspension continues for indefinite period or the order of suspension passed is malafide, then it would be open to the employee to challenge the same by approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution....(Para 26)

The statutory power conferred upon the disciplinary authority to keep an employee under suspension during contemplated or pending disciplinary enquiry cannot thus be interpreted in a manner so as to confer an arbitrary, unguided an absolute power to keep an employee under suspension without enquiry for unlimited period or by prolonging enquiry unreasonably, particularly when the delinquent employee is not responsible for such delay. Therefore, I am clearly of the opinion that a suspension, if prolonged unreasonably without holding any enquiry or by prolonging the enquiry itself, is penal in nature and cannot be sustained.

The view I have taken is supported from another judgment of this Court in Ayodhya Rai and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2006 (3) ESC 1755.

In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of suspension dated 28.6.2008 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by Respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed.

However, this judgment shall not preclude Respondents from proceeding with departmental enquiry, if any.

No cost.