The Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, has delivered a decisive ruling affirming that a quashed suspension order cannot be used to deny service benefits retroactively. When disciplinary proceedings are set aside by a competent tribunal and not revived, any period of unauthorized absence resulting from that illegal suspension must be treated as duty for all purposes, including pension calculation. This judgment reinforces the principle that administrative inaction or delay cannot override judicial orders.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, K. Radhakrishnan, IPS (Retired), was serving as Superintendent of Police (non-IPS) in the Kerala State Police Service when he was considered for promotion to the Indian Police Service (IPS) against vacancies for the year 2014. He was included in the Select List and subsequently appointed to the IPS with effect from 09.11.2016 by a notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (Annexure A-2). However, the State of Kerala, as the first respondent, refused to recognize this appointment and continued to treat him as a state police officer under suspension.
Key Facts
- The applicant was placed under suspension on 24.10.2016 under the Kerala Police (Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (Annexure A-1)
- The Ministry of Home Affairs issued notification appointing him to the IPS with effect from 09.11.2016 (Annexure A-2)
- The applicant challenged the suspension before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA 653/2017
- CAT, in OA 309/2017, held that the applicant was appointed to the IPS and would continue therein unless legally barred
- In OA 469/2017, CAT quashed both the suspension order (Annexure A-1) and the Memo of Charges on 31.08.2017, directing the State to issue posting orders
- The State challenged CAT’s order before the Kerala High Court, which dismissed the petition on 09.07.2019 (Annexure A-4)
- The State’s review petition was dismissed on 30.08.2019 (Annexure A-5)
- The State’s SLP before the Supreme Court was dismissed on 09.07.2020 (Annexure A-6)
- The State finally issued posting orders on 26.08.2020 (Annexure A-7), appointing the applicant as Commandant, KAP V Battalion
- The applicant submitted a representation on 11.09.2020 (Annexure A-8) seeking regularization of the period from 24.10.2016 to 25.08.2020 as duty for all purposes
- CAT, in OA 43/2021 dated 25.01.2021 (Annexure A-9), directed the State to consider the representation within three weeks
- The State failed to act and instead issued two Memos of Charges in April 2021, just before the applicant’s retirement on 30.04.2021
- The State issued G.O.(Rt) No.685/2022/GAD dated 16.02.2022 (Annexure A-10), refusing regularization pending finalization of disciplinary proceedings
Procedural History
- 24.10.2016: Suspension order issued under Kerala Police Rules (Annexure A-1)
- 09.11.2016: Appointment to IPS notified by Ministry of Home Affairs (Annexure A-2)
- 2017: OA 653/2017 filed challenging suspension
- 2017: OA 309/2017 filed; CAT affirmed IPS appointment
- 31.08.2017: CAT quashed suspension and Memo of Charges in OA 469/2017; directed posting
- 09.07.2019: Kerala High Court dismissed State’s OP(CAT) 273/2017
- 30.08.2019: Kerala High Court dismissed State’s Review Petition
- 09.07.2020: Supreme Court dismissed SLP(C) Diary No.6989/2020
- 26.08.2020: State issued posting order (Annexure A-7)
- 11.09.2020: Applicant’s representation for regularization (Annexure A-8)
- 25.01.2021: CAT directed State to consider representation within three weeks (Annexure A-9)
- April 2021: Two Memos of Charges issued just before retirement
- 16.02.2022: G.O.(Rt) No.685/2022/GAD issued refusing regularization (Annexure A-10)
- 17.03.2026: Final hearing before CAT Ernakulam
- 24.03.2026: Judgment delivered
Relief Sought
The applicant sought:
- Declaration that the State’s refusal to regularize the period from 24.10.2016 to 25.08.2020 as duty for all purposes is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
- Quashing of Annexure A-10 order
- Direction to the State to regularize the said period as duty for all purposes, including pension, increments, and other service benefits
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a period of unauthorized absence, resulting from a suspension order that has been quashed by a competent tribunal and affirmed by higher courts, can be lawfully excluded from qualifying service for pension and other benefits when no fresh suspension order has been issued.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel argued that the suspension order dated 24.10.2016 was quashed by CAT on 31.08.2017 and this order was upheld by the Kerala High Court and the Supreme Court. Once quashed, the suspension order ceased to exist and could not be revived. The period from 24.10.2016 to 25.08.2020 was not a period of absence due to lawful suspension but due to the State’s refusal to implement a valid appointment order. The applicant was legally an IPS officer from 09.11.2016 and was kept out of service without any legal authority. The issuance of fresh Memos of Charges in April 2021, nearly five years after the quashed suspension, was a deliberate tactic to deny service benefits. Reliance was placed on the principle that administrative delay cannot defeat substantive rights.
For the Respondent
The State contended that disciplinary proceedings initiated on account of alleged links with the drugs mafia in Idukki District were still pending and that regularization of the suspension period could only be considered after finalization of those proceedings. It argued that the suspension order, though quashed, was based on serious allegations and that the State retained the right to withhold service benefits until the inquiry concluded. The State relied on Office Memorandum No.11012/15/85-Estt(A) dated 03.12.1985, which permits withholding of service benefits during pending disciplinary proceedings.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal conducted a meticulous review of the entire litigation trail and found that the suspension order dated 24.10.2016 was not merely challenged but was explicitly quashed by CAT on 31.08.2017, with the order affirmed by both the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Tribunal emphasized that a quashed order is legally dead and cannot be resurrected by subsequent events or administrative convenience.
"Once quashed, that order never revives unless and until the order of this Tribunal is reversed by either the Hon'ble High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court. That did not happen in this case. So Annexure A-1 order of suspension is dead and buried."
The Tribunal noted that no fresh suspension order was issued after 25.08.2020, and the applicant was posted in the IPS cadre on that date in compliance with the earlier judicial orders. The State’s reliance on the pending disciplinary proceedings initiated in 2021 was found to be legally untenable, as those proceedings arose from allegations that had already been adjudicated and dismissed. The Tribunal observed that the issuance of Memos of Charges in April 2021, just before retirement, and the delay in initiating the inquiry until November 2025, constituted deliberate procrastination.
The Tribunal held that the period from 24.10.2016 to 25.08.2020 was not a period of absence due to lawful suspension but due to the State’s unlawful refusal to implement a valid appointment. The applicant was kept out of service without any legal authority, in violation of the All India Services Rules. The State’s conduct was decried as arbitrary and in bad faith.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Tribunal quashed Annexure A-10 order dated 16.02.2022 and directed the State of Kerala to regularize the period from 24.10.2016 to 25.08.2020 as duty for all purposes, including pension, increments, and other service benefits, within one month from the date of receipt of the order. In default, simple interest at 8% per annum shall accrue from the expiry of the one-month period until actual disbursal. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Quashed Suspension Cannot Be Used to Deny Service Benefits
- Practitioners must argue that any period of absence following a quashed suspension order must be treated as duty if no fresh suspension is issued
- Administrative agencies cannot invoke pending proceedings on unrelated or stale allegations to circumvent judicial orders
- The doctrine of res judicata applies to administrative orders once affirmed by higher courts
Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings Is Not a Valid Ground for Withholding Benefits
- Deliberate delay in initiating or concluding disciplinary proceedings cannot be used to deny pension or service rights
- If a suspension is quashed and no new order is issued, the employee is entitled to service credit for the entire period
- Tribunals and courts will view late-initiated proceedings with suspicion, especially when timed near retirement
Legal Certainty Trumps Administrative Convenience
- Once a judicial order is final, administrative bodies are bound to implement it without condition
- The State cannot create new grounds for denial after a judicial determination has been made
- This judgment reinforces the supremacy of judicial orders over bureaucratic discretion in service matters
