[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Durga Ram Paliwal vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 March, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (1 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14863/2016
Naru Lal Meghwal S/o Shri Modiram Meghwal, aged about 48 years,
resident of Village godana, Post Gogla, Tehsil Jhadol, District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Departmental of
Revenue, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector (Land Records), Udaipur.
----Respondents
Alongwith connected matters
(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13959/2018
(Durgaram Paliwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)
(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16325/2021
(Dr. Mohd. Imtiaz Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Sushil Solanki, Mr. Narpat Singh, Mr. Bharat Devasi &
Dr. Harish Purohit assisted by with Ms. Vrinda Bhardwaj.
For Respondent(s):
Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG assisted by Mr. D.S. Pidiyar, Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC
assisted by with Mr. Tanuj Jain & Mr. Vivek Sharma.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
ORDER
27/03/2025
1. Suspension of a government servant alleged to be involved in
criminal offences is legally viewed and meant as a preventive
measure and not punitive. It serves the dual purpose of safeguarding
public interest and preventing undue influence on the course of
prosecution. Similarly, under criminal jurisprudence, pre-trial or as
an under trial detention of a suspect is intended as a preventive
action, not as punishment. We are concerned here with the former.
1.11. While suspension, no doubt, is a crucial tool for maintaining
discipline and transparency in Government services, it should be
exercised with caution, since, in practical terms, suspension is
contemptuously perceived. It shatters public image of a Government
1 Few lines copied inverbatim from another judgment rendered by this very bench, related to
suspension in SBCWP No.1788/2024
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (2 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
servant and causes stigma with seriously daunting effects. Even if
the individual is later cleared of wrongdoing, the negative perception
may not fully disappear. Thus, when such suspension is prolonged, it
effectively becomes punitive in nature, especially when the individual
is later acquitted. This results in irreversible civil and reputational
harm, despite a finding of innocence. The reality is stark: regardless
of the legal intent, suspension is widely perceived by society as
indicator of guilt, often causing irreparable damage to an individual’s
public standing and leading to deep personal and professional
demoralization.
2. The Government servants in the State of Rajasthan have been
categorized in four groups viz. (A) The State Services; (B) The
Subordinate Services; (C) The Ministerial Services and (D) The Class
IV Services. Petitioners in the above bunch of three petitions are
from different classes of their respective services. They are before
this Court, inter alia, alleging inaction / delay at the hands of the
respondents, in proceeding further after they were suspended. While
on the other hand they continue to be suspended from their
respective posts.
3. For the sake of brevity, the respective summaries of the three
petitions in hand are tabulated as below :
Duration of
Suspension
Reason for Legal Grounds Suspension Charge sheet
Case Name Post Order
Suspension for Challenge (as of Status
(Date)
27.03.2025)
(SBCWP Patwari FIR u/s Section 7 Suspension order 27.07.2016 8 years, 8 Still suspended
No.14863/2016) of PC Act, was does not explain months Charge-sheet filed
Naru Lal registered on why the in the month of
Meghwal vs. 8.8.2012 and petitioner was October, 2014,
State of request was suspended (status of trial –
Rajasthan made on belatedly after 4 prosecution
04.03.2014 to years from evidence)
grant prosecution registration of
sanction, and the FIR and after 2
same was granted years of granting
on 22.05.2014 prosecution
but petitioner sanction
was suspended
on 27.07.2016, on
the ground of
granting
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (3 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
Duration of
Suspension
Reason for Legal Grounds Suspension Charge sheet
Case Name Post Order
Suspension for Challenge (as of Status
(Date)
27.03.2025)
prosecution
sanction.
Petitioner was
caught hed
handed on Arrested on
24.04.2018 and 24.04.2018 at
arrested on 3:45 pm and
lodging FIR dated released on bail
Durga Ram
25.04.2018 for on 26.04.2018 at Still suspended,
Paliwal vs. State
Class IV the offences of PC 12:30 pm and 6 years, 11 charge-sheet filed
of Rajasthan 27.04.2018
employee Act, arrested, and joined his duties months on 12.07.2019
(SBCWP
joined his service at 1:30 pm same
No.13959/2018)
again after day. Hence
releasing on bail remained in
on 26.04.2018, custody for less
remained in than 48 hours.
custody for more
than 48 hours
(Still suspended)
FIR No.18/2016
dated 08.10.2016
(charge-sheet
Petitioner was
filed on
arrested for the
08.02.2017)
offences of Petitioner filed
(status of trial-
PCPNDT Act and representation as
prosecution
IPC as found per order passed
evidence)
prima facie in earlier writ
FIR No. 19/2017
involved, FIR petition
(acquitted on
Dr. Mohd. Imtiaz No.18/2016 dated No.10637/2021,
Block Chief 05.04.2025)
vs. State of 08.10.2016 was but the same was 8 years, 4
Medical FIR No. 03/2018
Rajasthan registered and he rejected on 21.11.2016 months, 6
Officer (charge-sheet
(SBCWP remains in 20.09.2021 days
(BCMO) filed on
No.16325/2021) custody for more stating another
27.02.2018)
than 48 hours, four FIRs under
(status of trial-
hence suspended. PCPNDT Act were
Prosecution
Subsequently, 3 registered during
evidence) &
more FIRs on the suspension
FIR No. 40/2018
similar repeat period.
(charge-sheet
offences were
filed on
lodged.
05.11.2018)
(status of trial-
framing of
charges)
4. The succinct case of each of the petitioners has though been
summed up in the table above, however, brief factual background may
also be noticed qua each of them before proceeding further. The same
is narrated hereinafter:-
5. SBCWP No. 14863/2016
5.1. The petitioner, while serving as a Patwari, was charged under
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1958, with an FIR
registered on 08.08.2012. The prosecution sanction was granted on
22.05.2014, and the petitioner was placed under suspension on
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (4 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
27.07.2016. The impugned suspension order though refers to the FIR
lodged in 2012 and the prosecution sanction in 2014, but same does
not disclose why the petitioner was suspended at such belated stage.
The petitioner earlier also filed a writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.9476/2016 challenging the suspension order, which was
disposed of by this Court on 22.08.2016, giving the petitioner liberty to
file representation. The petitioner then submitted a representation
before the Respondent No.2, but the same was rejected vide impugned
order dated 17.11.2016.
6. SBCWP No. 13959/2018.
6.1. The petitioner was appointed as a class-4 employee on
26.12.1978 and became permanent on 01.09.1983. He served in the
Tehsil Office, Sojat. The petitioner was accused by one Rajmal Mewara
in a complaint alleging that the petitioner demanded a bribe of
Rs.10,000 to not alter a mutation entry in favor of Babulal. The Anti-
Corruption Bureau (ACB) laid a trap and conducted an operation on
24.04.2018, during which the petitioner was caught red handed and
arrested. An FIR No.98/2018 was registered on 25.04.2018 under
various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and IPC.
6.2. After the arrest, the petitioner applied for bail under Section 439
of Cr.P.C., which was granted on 26.04.2018. Following his release, he
returned to his duties at the Tehsil Office at 1:30 PM on the same day,
showing that he was not in custody for more than 48 hours. However,
on 27.04.2018, the District Collector of Pali issued a suspension order
against the petitioner, invoking Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. Petitioner’s case is that
he had no role in the alleged bribery incident, as he was a 4th class
employee with no authority to alter mutation records. Moreover, the
mutation entry in question had already been recorded in the revenue
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (5 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
records as of 2012, and the dispute between the complainant and
Babulal was pending in civil court.
7. SBCWP No. 16325/2021
7.1. The petitioner herein, a Medical Officer, seeks to challenge an
order dated 20.09.2021 passed by respondent No.2, vide which his
representation dated 18.08.2021 to revoke his suspension was rejected.
This representation was made pursuant to an order passed by this
Court in writ petition No.10637/2021, asking the respondents to decide
the representation within four weeks.
7.2. The petitioner was initially placed under suspension on
21.11.2016, after being arrested in connection with FIR No.18/2016
dated 08.10.2016 (charge-sheet filed on 08.02.2017; current status of
trial-prosecution evidence) for alleged offenses under various sections
of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition
of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (‘PCPNDT Act’), 1994, and the IPC.
Subsequently, three more FIRs were also lodged against the petitioner
regarding PCPNDT Act and IPC i.e. FIR Nos.19/2017 (on completion of
trial-acquitted on 05.04.2025), 03/2018 (charge-sheet filed on
27.02.2018; current status of trial-Prosecution evidence) & FIR
no.40/2018 (charge-sheet filed on 05.11.2018; current status of trial-
framing of charges). The petitioner claims that he was later released on
bail in less than 48 hours of his arrest, which is though disputed by the
department. While the criminal trial was/is going on, departmental
proceedings were also initiated vide a memorandum, along with a
charge sheet, under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 based on the same
facts that form the basis of the criminal case.
7.3. The respondents initiated a departmental inquiry by appointing
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (6 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
an inquiry officer on 01.03.2021. The petitioner has been under
suspension since 21.11.2016.
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
8. SBCWP No.14863/2016
8.1. Learned counsel for petitioner would argue that the impugned
Order dated 17.11.2016 is illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable thus
violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The respondent rejected
the representation solely based on the circular dated 07.07.2010, which
is merely advisory in nature. Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958 does not
provide for automatic suspension upon the grant of prosecution
sanction. However, the District Collector did not consider this aspect
appropriately, making the impugned order illegal and liable to be
quashed and set aside.
8.2. The suspension of the petitioner by Order dated 27.07.2016 is
also illegal. The order does not specify why the petitioner was placed
under suspension. An FIR was registered against the petitioner under
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act on 08.08.2012, and
prosecution sanction was granted on 22.05.2014. Yet, after a delay of
about four years from the date the FIR was lodged, the petitioner was
suspended. This suspension is therefore illegal and should be quashed
and set aside.
8.3. The petitioner further submits that before placing a government
servant under suspension, the Competent Authority must consider the
necessity of such an action. Suspension not only deprives the employer
of utilizing the employee’s services but also burdens public funds
through the payment of subsistence allowance. It is the responsibility of
the Competent Authority to examine the facts of each case to determine
the desirability of suspension. In this case, the suspension order does
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (7 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
not explain why it was issued at this delayed stage, rendering the
suspension illegal.
8.4. The suspension order was passed mechanically without
considering the facts objectively or determining whether suspension
was necessary, desirable, or inevitable. Therefore, the impugned
suspension order is illegal and should be quashed and set aside.
8.5. The petitioner contends that the Competent Authority did not
apply its mind before issuing the suspension order, as it lacks
justification for the suspension. In the case of Prem Prakash Mathur Vs.
State of Rajasthan, the court emphasized that while suspension is not a
punishment, it can be more damaging than punishment, causing
humiliation.
8.6. The petitioner submits that there is no allegation against him
regarding attempting to delay the criminal trial or tampering with
evidence. In fact, the suspension order was issued after a delay of
about three years from the date of lodging the FIR, without any
thoughtful consideration. Moreover, no departmental inquiry has been
initiated against the petitioner. Therefore, the suspension is illegal and
should be quashed and set aside.
9. SBCWP No. 13959/2018
9.1. The impugned order dated 27.04.2018 is based on the Circular
dated 07.07.2010, which mandates suspension for employees caught
red-handed accepting bribes.
9.2. Although suspension is not legally considered as a punishment,
it has a severe impact on the employee’s dignity and reputation,
causing humiliation both personally and professionally.
9.3. The Circular dated 07.07.2010 is an executive instruction, which
can only fill gaps where there is no statutory legislation. However, Rule
13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal)
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (8 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
Rules, 1958, provides specific provisions for suspension, and these
executive instructions cannot override statutory law. Therefore, the
impugned order, which is based on this circular, is liable to be quashed.
9.4. When passing a suspension order, the respondent authority
must consider various factors, including whether the employee’s
continued presence in office would prejudice an inquiry, investigation,
or trial, or whether it would undermine public interest. The authority did
not take these factors into account when issuing the impugned
suspension order, making it liable to be set aside.
9.5. The administrative instructions, like the circular dated
07.07.2010, cannot encroach upon statutory provisions. Rule 13 of the
Rules of 1958 outlines the conditions for suspension, and the circular
cannot mandate automatic suspension based on factors not stipulated
by the law. Therefore, the order of suspension is unlawful and should be
revoked.
9.6. Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958 provides that suspension is
automatic only when a government servant is detained in custody for
more than 48 hours. Since the petitioner was not detained for this
duration, and the statutory provisions do not mandate suspension for
being trapped red-handed or for prosecution under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, the suspension order based on an administrative circular
is invalid.
9.7. That the appointing authority must apply its mind before placing
a government servant under suspension. The impugned suspension
order fails to reflect such consideration, violating the very basic
principles set forth.
10. SBCWP No. 16325/2021
10.1. It is well-settled that suspension is not meant to penalize an
employee but to achieve specific objectives, such as preventing the
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (9 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
employee from manipulating evidence or influencing witnesses during
the domestic enquiry. A mere reading of the impugned order dated
20.09.2021 (Annex.1) clearly shows that the respondents failed to
consider the representation in light of the aforesaid and denied
reinstatement on impermissible grounds. Therefore, on this sole
ground, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. He argues that parallel
inquiry cannot proceed based on the same set of facts and legal
principles.
10.2. The impugned order also states that the respondents wrote to
the Medical Council of Rajasthan seeking the cancellation of the
petitioner’s registration, although the petitioner still holds this
registration. The Medical Council cannot cancel the petitioner’s
registration unless he is convicted by a competent court. As the
petitioner has been falsely implicated and has maintained good conduct
since 2018, no prejudice would have been caused to the respondents if
the suspension were revoked. The prolonged suspension has adversely
affected the petitioner’s life socially and personally, and thus, the writ
petition deserves to be allowed.
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
11. In opposition, the consistent position of learned counsel by the
respondents, across all these petitions, is that this Court should refrain
from interference, given the clear and comprehensive remedial
framework already established through administrative circulars issued
by the state government from time to time, especially circular dated
22.03.2023 (discussed in greater detail in subsequent part of instant
order). Learned counsel for the respondents emphatically submit that
both the Review Committee and the suspending authority will act
strictly in accordance with law and the applicable circulars by examining
the petitioners’ cases and issuing appropriate administrative orders.
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (10 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
Accordingly, the petitions are liable to be dismissed on this ground
alone, without the need for further intervention. Nonetheless, the
specific contentions raised on merits in each case are addressed in the
following paragraphs.
12. SBCWP No.14863/2016
12.1. The suspension is based on serious corruption charges, with
prima facie evidence and prosecution sanction granted. It was deemed
inappropriate to allow the petitioner to discharge duties until the
criminal case is resolved. The material produced by the petitioner
reveals serious corruption charges, including being caught in trap
proceedings for demanding a bribe. Given the severity of the charges,
the suspension is justified. Failure to suspend would undermine public
trust in the State machinery.
12.2. Suspension is a temporary measure to ensure transparency in
investigations, not a punishment. If proven innocent, the petitioner will
receive benefits for the suspension period. Suspension is an
administrative function of the State Government, and this Court should
not substitute its decision. The writ petition challenging the suspension
is not maintainable and should be dismissed.
12.3. The petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under the
CCA Rules of 1958 by filing an appeal before the State Government.
Bypassing this remedy and directly approaching the Court makes the
writ petition not maintainable and subject to dismissal.
13. SBCWP No. 13959/2018
13.1. The petitioner has been placed under suspension on account of
being caught red handed while accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/- on
24.04.2018 while working on the post of Class IV Employee, Tehsil
Office Sojat, District Pali. That there are serious charges of corruption
against the petitioner and the petitioner was caught red handed while
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (11 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
accepting the bribe and therefore, looking to such serious charges
against the petitioner, no interference is warranted in the order dated
27.04.2018 placing the petitioner under suspension.
13.2. It is submitted that against the order dated 27.04.2018, the
petitioner is having an alternative remedy in the form of filing appeal
under rule 22 of the Rules of 1958. As a matter of fact, the petitioner
has already availed the said alternative statutory remedy of appeal and
a copy of memo of appeal has been annexed with the writ petition as
Annex.17 dated 10.05.2018. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the
petitioner will be considered in accordance with law. In view of the fact
the petitioner has already availed the alternative remedy of appeal, the
present writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and same
is liable to be dismissed on this count alone.
14. SBCWP No. 16325/2021
14.1. While serving as Block Chief Medical Officer, Balesar, FIR No.
18/2016 was lodged against the petitioner for offences under the
PCPNDT Act, 1994, and IPC sections. The petitioner was taken into
custody on 08.10.2016. After remaining in custody for more than 48
hours, the petitioner was suspended on 21.11.2016 by invoking Rule 13
of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1958. A challan was filed against the petitioner on 08.02.2017. A
proposal for disciplinary action was received by the respondents’
department on 09.06.2020. After reviewing the proposal, the
memorandum of charges was issued against the petitioner under Rule
16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1958 on 06.08.2020. The petitioner was asked to submit his
written statement within 15 days, and the petitioner submitted a reply
on 04.11.2020.
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (12 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
14.2. Respondent No.1 also sent a letter on 16.03.2021 to the
Rajasthan Medical Council regarding the cancellation of the petitioner’s
registration. During the suspension period, FIRs Nos. 19/2017,
03/2018, and 40/2018 were also lodged against the petitioner for
PCPNDT Act violations.
14.3. After reviewing the response, which was found unsatisfactory, it
was decided to conduct a detailed departmental enquiry. On
01.03.2021, Commissioner IV Departmental Inquiry was appointed as
the inquiry officer.
14.4. Based on the facts, there has been no violation of the
petitioner’s fundamental rights or any statutory provision, thus this writ
petition is liable to be dismissed, and the petitioner is not entitled to
invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of
the Indian Constitution.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
15. I shall now proceed to render my opinion by recording reasons
thereof and after discussing and analysing merits and demerits of the
rival contentions vis-à-vis applicable law in the succeeding part
hereinafter.
16. First the law.
16.1. The controversy herein centers on the scope and breadth of the
core legal issue concerning the continued suspension of a government
servant pending his investigation or trial in connection with a criminal
offence. In State of Rajasthan, such a suspension order is passed under
the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules,
1958 (CCA Rules- for short). Rule 13 thereof (similar to Rule 10 of CCA
of UOI), being relevant, is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“13. Suspension :-
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (13 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
(1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is
subordinate or any other authority empowered by the
Government in that behalf may place a Government servant
under suspension.
(a) Where a disciplinary proceedings against him is
contemplated or is pending,
or
(b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal
offence is under investigation or trial:
Provided that where the order of suspension is made by an
authority lower than the Appointing Authority, such authority
shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority the
circumstances in which the order was made.
(2) A Government Servant who is detained in custody,
whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period
exceeding forty-eight hours shall be deemed to have been
suspended with effect from the date of detention, by an order
of the Authority competent to place a Government Servant
under suspension under sub-rule (1) and shall remain under
suspension until further orders.
(3) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory
retirement from Service imposed upon a Government Servant
under suspension is set aside in appeal or on review under
these rules and the case is remitted for further inquiry or action
or with any other directions, the order of his suspension shall
be deemed to have continue in force on and from the date of
the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory
retirement and shall remain in force until further orders.
(4) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory
retirement from service imposed upon a Government Servant is
set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence or by a
decision of a Court of Law and the disciplinary authority, on a
consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold
a further inquiry against him on allegations in which the
penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was
originally imposed, the Government Servant shall be deemed to
have been placed under suspension by the Appointing
Authority from the date of the original order dismissal, removal
or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under
suspension until further orders.
(5) Any order of suspension made or deemed to have been
made under this rule may at any time be revoked by the
authority which made or is deemed to have made the order
or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate.
16.2. Rule 13(1)(a) of CCA Rules thus grants the appointing
authority or a competent authority the power to suspend an employee
when criminal proceedings are pending, be it at FIR stage or the trial
arising there from.
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (14 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
16.3. The remedy against suspension is twofold as is borne out
from the Rule 22 and extract of Rule 34 which are as below :-
“22. Appeals against orders of suspension-
-A Government Servant may appeal against an order of
suspension to the authority to which the authority which made
or is deemed to have made the order, is immediately
subordinate.”
“34. Governor’s power to review:-
Notwithstanding anything contained in these
rules, the Governor may, on his own motion or otherwise, after
calling for the records of these case, review any order which is
made or appealable under these rules or the rules repealed by
rule 35 and, after consultation with the Commission where such
consultation is necessary:-
(a) confirm, modify or set aside the order;
(b) impose any penalty or set aside, reduce, confirm or enhance
the penalty imposed by the order;
(c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or to
any other authority directing such further action or inquiry as
he considers proper in the circumstances of the case, or
(d) Pass such other orders as he deems fit;
x-x-x-x-x”
17. Analysis of position of law in other countries on this issue reveals
that, across global jurisdictions (UK, USA, Australia, Canada, France),
suspension is a universal administrative tool, not a punishment,
designed to protect public interest rather than penalize the employee.
The presumption of innocence is a shared principle, yet its practical
application varies. However, the major difference is, unlike in India, full
pay during suspension is a norm (except in rare cases in USA), reducing
its punitive sting, though, of course, prolonged duration remains a
flashpoint everywhere. In fact, the USA stands out for its strong
constitutional due process protections, requiring pre-suspension
hearings in some cases, unlike the UK and Australia, where employer
discretion is broader, tempered by fairness principles. France’s rigid
time-bound suspension contrasts with the more flexible, case-by-case
approach in other countries, offering greater predictability but less
adaptability. The perception of collateral punishment is thus most
pronounced in a system with judicial delays i.e. India, where suspension
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (15 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
can stretch for years, mimicking a penalty without conviction with
financial cut on salary varying from 25% to 50%, as the case may be.
18. Let us now analyze the Law in India governing the issue of
whether a government servant accused in an FIR, facing trial in a
criminal proceeding, or awaiting prosecution upon administrative
sanction can remain suspended from service until acquitted–and
whether such suspension constitutes collateral punishment. The
answers are provided in the constitutional framework, statutory
provisions and judicial precedents providing a comprehensive view of
the position.
Constitutional Framework
19. The Indian Constitution is the bedrock which emanates rights of a
suspended government servant. Article 14 ensures equality before the
law and equal protection, requiring that administrative actions like
suspension be reasonable, non-arbitrary, and proportionate. Article 21
guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, interpreted expansively
by the Supreme Court to include the right to livelihood as integral part
thereof. Prolonged suspension, especially without pay beyond
subsistence allowance, would infringe this right by depriving the
employee of a dignified existence. The presumption of innocence,
though not explicitly enshrined, is a foundational principle of Indian
criminal jurisprudence and is duly reinforced by Article 21. Moving
further, Article 311 affords procedural safeguards to civil servants,
stipulating that they cannot be dismissed or reduced in rank except
after an inquiry with a reasonable opportunity to be heard. While
suspension is not explicitly covered, its prolonged use may indirectly
undermine these protections if it mimics punishment without due
process.
Statutory Provisions
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (16 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
20. The suspension of a government servant in State of Rajasthan is
governed by Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1958. Rule 13 thereof empowers the competent
authority to suspend a government servant if a disciplinary proceeding
is contemplated or pending of if the employee is under investigation,
inquiry, or trial for a criminal offence. Relevant has already been
extracted, supra. Likewise analogus Rules exist in Union of India namely
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
Rule 10 thereof.
Judicial Evolution: Restrictions on Indefinite Suspension
21. Over the years, Supreme Court has intervened to curb the misuse
of suspension powers, particularly in cases where employees remain
suspended for prolonged periods due to delayed criminal trials. In
Khem Chand v. Union of India (1958) 2 the Supreme Court held that
a government servant has a right to be heard before facing adverse
action, thus laying the foundation for the principles of natural justice in
service law.
21.1. In O.P. Gupta v. Union of India(1987) 3 the Supreme Court
ruled that prolonged suspension cannot be justified unless the trial
progresses in a timely manner. Likwise in State of Orissa v. Bimal
Kumar Mohanty (1994) 4 the Supreme Court held that suspension
must be reviewed periodically and cannot be continued indefinitely
without justification. In Union of India v. Dipak Mali (2010) 5 the
Supreme Court held that mere registration of an FIR does not
automatically justify suspension. It was held that the employer must
assess whether the nature of the allegations affects the employee’s
ability to function.
2 AIR 1958 SC 300
3 (1987) 4 SCC 328
4 (1994) 4 SCC 126
5 (2010) 2 SCC 222
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (17 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
21.2. In Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015) 6
Lamenting on the plight of a government servant suspended due to
criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court ruled that if a charge sheet is
not filed within three months, the suspension should not be extended
unless justified by special reasons. Prolonged suspension amounts to a
“punitive” action, violating constitutional principles of fairness. The
suspension must be reviewed periodically, ensuring that it does not
become an arbitrary punishment. For ready reference the relevant
extract is as below :-
“11. Suspension, specially preceding the formulation of charges, is
essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and must perforce be
of short duration. If it is for an indeterminate period or if its
renewal is not based on sound reasoning contemporaneously
available on the record, this would render it punitive in nature.
Departmental/disciplinary proceedings invariably commence with
delay, are plagued with procrastination prior and post the drawing
up of the memorandum of charges, and eventually culminate after
even longer delay.
12. Protracted periods of suspension, repeated renewal thereof,
have regrettably become the norm and not the exception that they
ought to be. The suspended person suffering the ignominy of
insinuations, the scorn of society and the derision of his
department, has to endure this excruciation even before he is
formally charged with some misdemeanour, indiscretion or
offence. His torment is his knowledge that if and when charged, it
will inexorably take an inordinate time for the inquisition or inquiry
to come to its culmination, that is, to determine his innocence or
iniquity. Much too often this has now become an accompaniment
to retirement. Indubitably, the sophist will nimbly counter that our
Constitution does not explicitly guarantee either the right to a
speedy trial even to the incarcerated, or assume the presumption
of innocence to the accused. But we must remember that both
these factors are legal ground norms, are inextricable tenets of
Common Law Jurisprudence, antedating even the Magna Carta of
1215, which assures that — “We will sell to no man, we will not
deny or defer to any man either justice or right.” In similar vein the
Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of
America guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions the accused
shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.
13. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
assures that:
“12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference
with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to
attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the6 (2015) 7 SCC 291
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (18 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
right to the protection of the law against such interference
or attacks.”
14. More recently, the European Convention on Human Rights in
Article 6(1) promises that:
“6. (1) in the determination of his civil rights and obligations
or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to
a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time….”
and in its second sub-article that:
“6. (2) Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”
15. to 19. xxx xxx xxx xxx
20. It will be useful to recall that prior to 1973 an accused could
be detained for continuous and consecutive periods of 15 days,
albeit, after judicial scrutiny and supervision. The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 contains a new proviso which has the effect of
circumscribing the power of the Magistrate to authorise detention
of an accused person beyond a period of 90 days where the
investigation relates to an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than
10 years, and beyond a period of 60 days where the investigation
relates to any other offence. Drawing support from the
observations contained of the Division Bench in Raghubir Singh v.
State of Bihar [(1986) 4 SCC 481 : 1986 SCC (Cri) 511] and more so
of the Constitution Bench in Antulay [(1992) 1 SCC 225 : 1992 SCC
(Cri) 93], we are spurred to extrapolate the quintessence of the
proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 to moderate suspension
orders in cases of departmental/disciplinary enquiries also. It
seems to us that if Parliament considered it necessary that a
person be released from incarceration after the expiry of 90 days
even though accused of commission of the most heinous crimes,
a fortiori suspension should not be continued after the expiry of
the similar period especially when a memorandum of
charges/charge-sheet has not been served on the suspended
person. It is true that the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
postulates personal freedom, but respect and preservation of
human dignity as well as the right to a speedy trial should also be
placed on the same pedestal.
21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension
order should not extend beyond three months if within this
period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served
on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of
charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed
for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the
Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any
department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as
to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and
which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against
him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any
person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his
having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately
safeguard the universally recognised principle of human dignity
and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (19 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
of the Government in the prosecution. We recognise that the
previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash
proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their
duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of
suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not
be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of
the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal
investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in
abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.”
(emphasis supplied)
Administrative Circulars / Instructions
22. Reliance has since been heavily placed by the learned counsels for
the respondents on administrative circulars issued from time to time.
Reference may first be had to the same, translated versions of which
are quoted as below :-
(1) Circular dated 19.04.1999
“For the purpose of reviewing cases of suspension of employees of the
Subordinate Service, Ministerial Service, and Class IV Employee Service
cadres, and cases in which charge sheets have not been issued, and
for taking decisions regarding their continuation of suspension or
reinstatement, Hon’ble the Governor hereby constitutes a committee
with the following members:-
1. Minister of the concerned department Chairman
2. Concerned Secretary of the Administrative Department
Member
3. Head of the Department Member Secretary
The Head of the Department will consider the
recommendations of the Review Committee and take action in each
case based on its merits.
The administrative department for the aforementioned
committee will be the Personnel (K-3) Department.”
(2) Circular dated 23.06.2000
“In continuation of this department order dated 19.4.99, the approval
of His Excellency the Governor is hereby granted for the addition of
the following lines at the end of the committee constituted for
reviewing cases of suspension of employees of the Subordinate
Service, Ministerial Service, and Class IV Employee Service cadres, and
cases in which charge sheets have not been issued, and for taking
decisions regarding their suspension or reinstatement:
(1) The committee will meet at least once every 3 months.
(2) The Head of the Department will take appropriate action based
on the recommendation of the Review Committee.
(3) Administrative Reforms Department’s Order No. P.6 (23)
Pra.Su./Anu.3/93 dated 16.6.93 is hereby rescinded.”
(3) Circular dated 28.07.2008
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (20 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]“In supersession of the order dated 08.06.99 regarding the review of
cases of government servants suspended by the State Government,
due to registration of criminal cases by ACB, the following State Level
Committee is hereby constituted by order of His Excellency the
Governor:-
1. Chief Secretary Chairman
2. Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur Member
3. Principal Secretary of the concerned Administrative Department
Member
4. Principal Secretary, Personnel Member Secretary
The committee will review cases of suspension exceeding three
years.
The cases of officers of the State Service who have been
suspended for more than three years in criminal cases registered by
the Anti-Corruption Bureau will be reviewed by the committee on the
basis of the merits of each case. The period of three years will be
calculated from the date of presentation of the charge sheet in the
competent court.
The committee will meet at least once every 6 months and will
submit its recommendations to the State Government (Personnel
Department). The State Government will take appropriate decisions
based on the facts of each case.
The administrative department for the aforementioned committee will
be the Personnel (K-3/Complaints) Department.”
(4) Circular dated 22.03.2023
“Subject: Instructions regarding suspension and reinstatement of
public servants in criminal cases.
Under the provisions of Rule 13 of Rajasthan Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, in relation to
suspension of public servants in criminal cases and reinstatement from
suspension, new guidelines are provided as follows, superseding the
instructions issued by this department in Circular No. P. 2 (157)
Personnel / A-3/97 Jaipur dated 10.08.2001 and dated 07.07.2010:-
A. Suspension and Reinstatement in Criminal Cases Registered by
the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) :
1. If a public servant is caught red-handed while accepting a bribe
by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, or is kept in police/judicial custody for
more than 48 hours in any other case related to corruption, the
concerned public servant shall be immediately suspended.
In such cases involving public servants, once the prosecution
sanction is issued and the challan is filed before the competent court,
the matter shall be placed before the Review Committee constituted
for considering reinstatement from suspension.
2. In other cases related to corruption (excluding being caught
red-handed while accepting a bribe), such as cases related to
disproportionate assets or cases under the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, if the public servant has not been suspended earlier,
then upon the issuance of prosecution sanction, the competent
authority shall examine the case based on the facts, nature and
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (21 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
seriousness of the allegations, the expectation of the State
Government for appropriate conduct from the public servant, the
dignity of the post, and the possibility of influencing
prosecution/investigation or evidence, and take an appropriate
decision regarding the suspension of the public servant.
If the public servant has been suspended in such a case, then
upon the filing of the challan in the competent court, the case of the
public servant shall be placed before the Review Committee for
consideration regarding reinstatement from suspension.
B. Suspension and Reinstatement in Heinous and Grievous
Criminal Cases Registered by the Police:
1. In criminal cases involving heinous and grievous offenses such
as murder, rape, dowry death, human trafficking, female foeticide,
drug trafficking, use of unfair means in public examinations, and
moral turpitude, if any public servant is arrested and kept in
police/judicial custody for more than 48 hours, then such public
servant shall be immediately suspended.
In such cases involving public servants, if the challan has
already been filed before the competent court, then their case shall be
placed before the Review Committee constituted for considering
reinstatement from suspension.
2. In cases involving heinous and grievous offenses such as
murder, rape, dowry death, human trafficking, female foeticide, drug
trafficking, use of unfair means in public examinations, and moral
turpitude, if the public servant has not been arrested or the duration
of police/judicial custody is 48 hours or less, then the competent
authority shall examine the case in light of the facts of the case,
nature and seriousness of the allegations, the expectation of the State
Government for appropriate conduct from the public servant, the
dignity of the post held, and the possibility of influencing
prosecution/investigation or tampering with evidence, and take an
appropriate decision regarding the suspension of the public servant.
If the public servant has been suspended in such a case, then
upon filing of the challan in the competent court, the case of the
public servant shall be placed before the Review Committee for
consideration regarding reinstatement from suspension.
C. Suspension and Reinstatement in Criminal Cases Registered
by the Police Related to Embezzlement, Misuse of Position Causing
Loss to the State Treasury, or Other Offenses of Abuse of Official
Position:
1. In criminal cases related to embezzlement, misuse of position
causing loss to the state treasury, or other offenses involving abuse of
official position, if any public servant is arrested and kept in police or
judicial custody for more than 48 hours, such public servant shall be
immediately suspended.
In such cases involving public servants, if the challan has been
filed before the competent court, the matter shall be placed before
the Review Committee for consideration regarding reinstatement
from suspension.
2. In criminal cases related to embezzlement, misuse of position
causing loss to the state treasury, or other offenses involving abuse of
official position, if the public servant has not been arrested, or if the
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (22 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
duration of police/judicial custody is 48 hours or less, the competent
authority shall examine the case based on the facts of the case, the
nature and seriousness of the allegations, the expectation of the State
Government for appropriate conduct from the public servant, the
dignity of the post held, and the possibility of influencing
prosecution/investigation or tampering with evidence, and shall take
an appropriate decision regarding the suspension of the public
servant.
If the public servant has already been suspended in such a case,
then upon filing of the challan in the competent court, the matter shall
be placed before the Review Committee for consideration regarding
reinstatement from suspension.
D. Suspension and Reinstatement in Other Criminal Cases
Registered by the Police (Cases other than those mentioned in Points
B and C) :
In criminal cases registered by the police (other than those
mentioned in Points B and C), if a public servant is arrested and kept in
police or judicial custody for more than 48 hours, then such public
servant shall be immediately suspended.
In criminal cases registered by the police (other than those
mentioned in Points B and C), if a public servant has not been
arrested, or if the duration of police or judicial custody is 48 hours or
less, then the competent authority shall examine the case in light of
the facts, nature and seriousness of the allegations, the State
Government’s expectations of proper conduct from the public servant,
the dignity of the post, and the possibility of influencing
prosecution/investigation or tampering with evidence, and take an
appropriate decision regarding suspension.
In such cases, suspended public servants may be reinstated at
any time by the competent authority under Rule 13(5) after
considering the facts of the case, the nature and seriousness of the
allegations, the possibility of influencing prosecution/ investigation or
evidence, and the current status of the case. There is no requirement
to place such cases before the Review Committee for consideration
regarding reinstatement from suspension.
General Instructions:
1. The Review Committee shall assess the merits and demerits of
each case by considering the facts, nature and seriousness of the
allegations, the possibility of influencing prosecution/investigation or
tampering with evidence, and the current status of the case, and shall
provide its recommendation regarding either revoking the suspension
or keeping it in force. After reinstatement based on the Committee’s
recommendation, the concerned department shall ensure the posting
of the public servant to a position of low public interaction and lesser
importance, preferably at a location that is different and distant from
the place of incident.
2. In criminal cases eligible for review by the Review Committee, if
the investigating agency fails to complete the investigation and
submit the challan before the competent court or forward the
prosecution proposal to the competent authority even after a period
of two years, then such cases of suspended public servants shall also(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (23 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
be placed before the Review Committee for consideration of
reinstatement.
3. The Review Committee meeting shall be held once every four
months without fail.
4. In criminal cases, if suspended public servants file a
petition/appeal against the suspension order before the Hon’ble
Court, and the Hon’ble Court directs the competent authority to
examine the case and issue a reasoned order in accordance with the
service rules, then the competent authority shall conduct a merit-
based assessment of the case. This shall include a review of the facts,
nature and seriousness of the allegations, the possibility of influencing
prosecution/investigation or tampering with evidence, and the current
status of the case, and accordingly issue an appropriate
speaking/reasoned order. Such cases shall not be placed before the
Review Committee.
5. If a public servant is acquitted by the trial court in a criminal
case, then such public servant should normally be reinstated from
suspension, even if the State Government has filed an appeal against
the order of the Hon’ble Court. In such cases, the recommendation of
the Review Committee shall not be required.
6. In criminal cases, if the competent authority decides to deny
prosecution against a public servant, then in such cases, the
suspension shall be revoked, and reinstatement orders shall be issued.
7. If a public servant is kept in police or judicial custody for more
than 48 hours, then the suspension order shall be issued under Rule
13(2). In all other cases, the suspension order shall be issued under
Rule 13(1).”
(emphasis supplied)
23. In the light of circulars, ibid, the powers of the state as an
employer to suspend government servant involved in criminal
proceedings are to be exercised in public interest vis-à-vis the rights of
a suspended government servant; and the balance between
administrative discipline and the principle of the presumption of
innocence till proved guilty. Let us delve on it in the succeeding part by
exploring the aforesaid circulars, particularly the last of the circulars i.e.
dated 22.03.2023 which more or less covers the previous ones and
supersedes them, its legal dimensions and underlying reasoning.
24. In fact, at the very outset, I may like to observe that perusal of
the circular dated 22.03.2023 reveals that it is in supersession of earlier
circulars dated 10.08.2001 and 07.07.2010. Thus, after issuance of
circular dated 22.02.2023, the earlier two superseded circulars cannot
be the cause of suspension or continuation of suspension, if ordered
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (24 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
already. A fresh decision has to be taken in light of circular dated
20.03.2023. Its provisions categorised from A to D, along with general
instructions, offer abundant protection and fairness to the suspended
government servants who are facing criminal proceedings, but only if it
is implemented in its full earnest with the same intent as it were
framed. Let us see how.
24.1. Circular dated 22.03.2023 supra, rather envisages structured
Safeguards through Categorization of offences. The circular classifies
criminal cases into distinct categories–those involving corruption
(ACB), heinous crimes (like murder or rape), economic offenses (like
embezzlement), and all other general criminal cases so as to adopt a
case-specific approach instead of a one-size-fits-all suspension rule. It
ensures that not every accusation leads to automatic or prolonged
suspension. Instead, it calls for fact-based assessments and review
mechanisms, which prevent unjust or arbitrary action against an
employee.
24.2. Furthermore, formation and establishment of a Review Committee
is mandatory. Its regular convening every four months is meant to keep
the suspending authority under check and to remain accountable to the
Review Committee. It thus provides oversight into the suspension and
reinstatement process by making sure that suspended officials are not
left in indefinite limbo. The Review Committee must, therefore, assess
cases periodically, considering factors such as the seriousness of the
offense, the risk of tampering with evidence, and the current status of
the case to avoid/prevent prolonged and prejudicial suspension without
reasoned justification.
24.3. The circular also encourages reinstatement if there is a delay in
Investigation or trial. Also it mandates that if a public servant is
acquitted by the trial court, reinstatement is to be done as a norm,
even if an appeal is pending. The intent thus is to prevent the misuse of
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (25 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
suspension as a punitive measure in cases where investigations are
slow, politically motivated, or baseless. Underlying presumption being of
innocence, especially after acquittal.
24.4. The circular also carves out clear Distinction Between arrest-
based and allegation-based Suspension. It ensures that mere
registration of an FIR is not enough for suspension in many cases
unless the public servant is arrested or held for over 48 hours. It
requires suspension decisions to be based on objective considerations,
such as the gravity of the offense, the potential to influence evidence,
etc. so as to rule out any automatic victimization upon registration of an
FIR and protects against false or malicious complaints meant to derail
careers.
24.5. In tune with Supreme court judgment in Ajay Chaudhary versus
Union of India (2015), in case criminal proceedings are still pending
reinstated officials are to be posted in less sensitive and low-public-
interaction positions, and preferably not at the same location where the
alleged incident occurred, maintaining a balance qua the integrity of
any ongoing trial or investigation and allowing officials to resume their
service with dignity.
24.6. Furthermore, circular mandates that if the competent authority
decides not to grant sanction for prosecution, the suspension must be
revoked so as to provide immediate relief from prolonged stigma and
loss of service benefits when the case is deemed weak or unworthy of
prosecution.
CONCLUSION
25. Two questions thus arise i.e. first, whether a government servant,
either accused in an FIR or an under trial in a pending criminal
proceeding or proposed to be prosecuted upon grant of administrative
sanction for prosecution, can continue to be suspended from service
until the conclusion of trial till he is acquitted ? Second, does such a
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (26 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
suspension, when prolonged due to delay not attributable to the
suspended government servant, constitute a collateral punishment,
imposed solely on the state’s harboring a suspicion that the accused
government servant will ultimately be convicted in the pending criminal
proceedings ? In light of the circulars, ibid, and the judicial precedents,
the answer to first question is in negative, while it is in affirmative to
the second.
25.1. There is no quibble about the proposition that a government
servant accused of serious offenses–say, corruption, fraud, or moral
turpitude–may erode public confidence if allowed to continue in service.
Suspension serves as a precautionary measure to prevent the employee
from leveraging their position to obstruct justice. The power to suspend
is inherent in the employer’s disciplinary authority, particularly when
the employee’s continuance in office could prejudice the investigation or
trial. The state has a legitimate interest in maintaining the integrity of
public administration. The pendency of a trial, coupled with the gravity
of the charges, justifies keeping the employee out of active duty until
the cloud of suspicion dissipates. Seen from that angle, the state may
be right to argue that acquittal is the only definitive proof of innocence
in such cases, and until that threshold is met, suspension is warranted.
But, not quite so in every case.
26. However, on the flip side, prolonged suspension raises serious
concerns about fairness, equity, and the presumption of innocence–a
cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence enshrined in Article 11 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reflected in common law
systems. Suspension, though not a punishment in theory, has punitive
consequences in practice: loss of income (beyond subsistence
allowance), stagnation of career, and social stigma. When trials drag on
for years–a common reality in overburdened judicial system in India–
suspension becomes a de facto penalty imposed without a finding of
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (27 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
guilt. The employer state often suspends an employee not because guilt
is established but because it harbors a suspicion of eventual conviction.
This approach risks inverting the burden of proof: instead of the
prosecution proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the employee must
endure suspension until they prove their innocence through acquittal.
Legally, suspension is an interim measure, not a penalty, is the settled
position, yet, when prolonged, its effects mirror those of punishment or
“disguised” punishment.
27. This predicament is more evident in cases under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, where delays in trials or granting sanction for
prosecution can extend suspension indefinitely. The employee is left in
suspended animation, neither convicted nor exonerated, but yet
continues to suffer the suspension. Such a scenario offends the principle
of ‘audi alteram partem’ (hear the other side) and the maxim ‘nemo
judex in causa sua’ (no one should be a judge in their own case), as the
employer state unilaterally imposes a sanction without any judicial
oversight.
28. In light of the above discussion and Supreme Court judgments, it
is deemed appropriate that following guidelines are culled out to be
borne in mind by the competent authority/review committee, as the
case may be, before ordering suspension, for its further continuation or
revocation thereof depending upon case to case :
Guidelines for Suspension of Government Servants Due to
Criminal Proceedings:
I. General Principles –
Suspension due to criminal proceedings should be based on objective
evaluation, not mere allegations. Innocence is presumed until proven
guilty–suspension should not serve as punishment. Suspension must
serve the public interest; an FIR alone isn’t sufficient ground. Likewise
grant of prosecution sanction also must be not, per se, be a mechanical
reason to suspend, but there must be a meeting of mind.
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (28 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
II. Grounds for Suspension -
Suspension may be justified if charges involve corruption, financial
misconduct, security threats, or moral turpitude. Continued service may
hinder investigation or trial. The employee could influence witnesses or
tamper with evidence. The offense undermines public trust in the
institution.
III. Time Limits on Suspension-
If no charge sheet is filed by the prosecution in trial court within 3
months, suspension shall not be extended unless special reasons exist
and are recorded by the competent authority and conveyed to the
delinquent official. In case charge sheet is filed in trial court within 3
months of suspension, then the period of suspension should normally
not exceed 2 years unless trial is close to completion and it is
specifically so noted on the administrative file by the competent
authority and such reasons are conveyed in writing to the suspended
official. If criminal trial is delayed and exceeds 3 years, the competent
authority must consider alternatives like transfer to a non-sensitive
post, by revoking suspension. Alternatively, specific reasons be again
recorded in writing justifying further continuation of suspension and
same be conveyed to the suspended government servant.
IV. Periodic Review
Suspension must be reviewed every 4 months by the review committee
and/or the competent authority under Rule 13 (5) of the CCA Rules,
1958. Review must assess trial progress, continued need for
suspension, and possible alternatives. Continuation must be justified
with written reasons.
V. Alternatives to Indefinite Suspension-
Instead of prolonged suspension, the competent authority must
consider Transfer to a non-sensitive role as per Supreme Court
Judgment in Ajay Chaudhary vs UOI.
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (29 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
VI. Distinction between Serious vs. Minor OffensesMinor offenses (e.g., typically triable by Magistrates but not all) don’t
justify suspension. However, serious offenses (e.g., Sessions trials or
other such crimes against society or corruption, fraud, harassment etc.)
may require immediate action. The decision to suspend must reflect the
nature and impact of the offense.
29. In addition to the guidelines mentioned above, this Court deems it
appropriate to exercise its writ jurisdiction by issuing a writ of
mandamus to the State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary,
Department of Personnel, to ensure that all competent authorities
vested with the power to suspend government servants adhere to a
reasonable timeline for taking further action following a suspension
order passed due to pending criminal proceedings. It is thus specifically
directed that if a challan/charge sheet is not filed before the trial court
within 90 days from the date of suspension order, the suspending
authority, upon being approached by the suspended official, must
decide under Rule 13(5) of CCA Rules whether to continue or revoke the
suspension by providing written reasons to the suspended employee. If
three years have elapsed since the challan/charge sheet was filed and
the trial remains pending, the competent authority must reconsider the
necessity of continued suspension and convey reasons in writing.
Failure to comply with the specified timelines, as directed, would accord
the suspended government servant an indefeasible right to seek
revocation of suspension by filing an appeal under Rule 22 of CCA
Rules. Further, it is directed that any appeal filed under Rule 22 must
be decided by the appellate authority within 30 days of receipt; if not,
reasons for the delay must be recorded in writing and communicated to
the suspended government servant.
30. It is further directed that the Government of Rajasthan, i.e.
through The Secretary Personnel, shall take appropriate steps to
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (30 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
sensitize the concerned authorities of State Government in this behalf
and also convey the aforesaid mandamus as well as Guidelines to them
for compliance. Registry of this Court is directed to e-mail a copy of the
instant order/judgment to the Chief Secretary as well as The Secretary
Personnel of the State.
31. RELIEF
31.1. SBCWP No.14863/2016:- Petitioner has been under suspension
for past 8 years and 8 months. It appears that he was suspended on
27.07.2016 without due application of mind, belatedly, in a mechanical
manner, merely on the ground of grant of prosecution sanction on
22.05.2014, that too, after more than 2 years of grant of prosecution
sanction. That in itself is a sufficient ground to quash the suspension
order. Apart therefrom, as an upshot of discussion and analysis
recorded in the preceding paragraphs, the impugned appellate order
dated 17.11.2016, passed on the basis of circular dated 07.07.2010
(since superseded) and pursuant thereto his continuous suspension is
even otherwise not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned suspension
order dated 27.07.2016 and subsequent rejection order dated
17.11.2016 are both quashed with a direction to the respondents to
provide him a posting anywhere in the state, within 30 days of him
approaching the respondents with web print of the instant order, in
terms of the guidelines, supra.
31.2. In SBCWP No.13959/2018; given the gravity of offence (caught
red handed) and in SBCWP No.16325/2021; gravity of offence coupled
with multiple FIRs (currently three, as in fourth he stands acquitted) the
respondents are directed to ascertain the stage of their respective trials
and then consider the possibility of revoking the suspension under Rule
13(5) of the CCA Rules and post them anywhere in the state to ensure
that they do not influence the ongoing trials in any manner. Needful be
done within six weeks of the petitioners approaching the respondents
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19943] (31 of 31) [CW-14863/2016]
with web print of the instant order. Alternatively, specific reasons in
writing be conveyed to them, including the opinion of the review
committee, for further extension of their suspension with liberty to
them to seek remedy to assail the said reasons, in any manner they like
in accordance with law, including filing an appeal under Rule 22 of the
CCA Rules.
32. Disposed of with the above observations and guidelines. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
Sumit Sharma/-
Whether Fit for Reporting:- Yes / No
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link