Ajay Kumar Chaudhary Precedent | Indefinite Departmental Suspension Without Timely Enquiry Illegal: MP HC Directs 4-Week Review

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated that indefinite suspension of a government employee without concluding the departmental enquiry is illegal and arbitrary. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary v. Union of India, the Court directed the competent authority to decide the petitioner's representation within four weeks, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice and timely adjudication in service matters.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Amar Singh Rawat, a government employee, was placed under suspension following the registration of a criminal case against him in 2023. Despite submitting a reply to the charge-sheet issued on 27.01.2025, the departmental enquiry remained inconclusive, and his suspension continued indefinitely. Aggrieved by the lack of resolution, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Key Facts

• 2023: Criminal case registered against the petitioner
• 24.12.2024: Petitioner placed under suspension by order of the respondents
• 27.01.2025: Charge-sheet issued to the petitioner
• Post-27.01.2025: Petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet
• Till date: Departmental enquiry not concluded; suspension not reviewed

Procedural History

• 2026: Writ Petition (WP No. 26598 of 2026) filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench, seeking:
  • Recall and cancellation of the suspension order dated 24.12.2024
  • Costs of litigation
  • Any other relief deemed fit

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought the following reliefs:

1. Direction to the respondents to recall and cancel the suspension order dated 24.12.2024, in light of the judgment in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary v. Union of India.
2. Grant of costs of litigation.
3. Any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether continuing a government employee under suspension for an indefinite period, without concluding the departmental enquiry, violates the principles of natural justice and timely adjudication as established in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary v. Union of India.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that:

• The petitioner’s suspension had been continuing for an inordinate period without any progress in the departmental enquiry.
• Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary v. Union of India, which held that suspension cannot be continued indefinitely without concluding the enquiry.
• The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to expeditiously decide the matter and pass a reasoned order regarding his suspension.

For the Respondent/State

Learned Government Advocate for the State submitted that:

• The petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal before the appellate authority.
• However, the State assured that if the petitioner filed a representation, it would be considered and decided expeditiously.

The Court's Analysis

The Court observed that the petitioner had been under suspension since 24.12.2024, and despite the issuance of a charge-sheet and the petitioner’s reply, the departmental enquiry had not been concluded. The Court emphasized the dictum of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary v. Union of India, wherein it was held that suspension cannot be continued for an inordinate period without concluding the enquiry.

"The Court relied on the principle that prolonged suspension without timely adjudication amounts to a violation of the employee’s rights under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary underscores that suspension is not a punitive measure but a temporary arrangement, and its continuation without progress in the enquiry is arbitrary and illegal."

The Court further noted that while the State had argued the availability of an alternative remedy, it directed the competent authority to expeditiously decide the petitioner’s representation to ensure justice and fairness.

The Verdict

The Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:

1. The petitioner was directed to file a fresh representation along with a copy of the judgment in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary v. Union of India before the respondents/competent authority within seven days from the date of the order (13.07.2026).
2. The competent authority was directed to decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order.
3. The order passed was to be communicated to the petitioner forthwith.
4. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Suspension Cannot Be Indefinite

• Timely adjudication is mandatory: The judgment reinforces that departmental enquiries must be concluded expeditiously, and suspension cannot be prolonged without progress. Practitioners should argue that indefinite suspension violates Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Judicial review under Article 226: Even where alternative remedies exist, courts may intervene if the suspension is arbitrarily prolonged, as seen in this case.

Representation Must Be Decided Expeditiously

• Four-week timeline: The Court’s direction to decide the representation within four weeks sets a benchmark for expeditious disposal in service matters. Employees under suspension can cite this judgment to seek timely resolution of their representations.
• Reasoned and speaking order: The competent authority is obligated to pass a well-reasoned order, ensuring transparency and accountability in departmental proceedings.

Alternative Remedy Does Not Bar Judicial Intervention

• Courts retain discretion: While the State argued the availability of an alternative remedy, the High Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct expeditious disposal. This underscores that alternative remedies do not oust judicial review where fundamental rights are at stake.
• Practical takeaway: Employees aggrieved by prolonged suspension can approach the High Court even if an alternative remedy exists, provided they demonstrate inordinate delay or arbitrariness.