The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that indefinite suspension of a government employee without initiating departmental proceedings violates fundamental service jurisprudence. The Court not only recognized the illegality of prolonged suspension but also enforced immediate reinstatement and mandated timely payment of subsistence allowance, setting clear timelines for compliance.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Rajesh Kumar, was serving as a Junior Assistant with the Municipal Council, Kurali, when he was suspended on 06.03.2023 following the registration of FIR No.11 dated 03.03.2023 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2026, at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Mohali. Despite being released on regular bail on 10.04.2023, no show cause notice was issued, no charge sheet was served, and no departmental inquiry was initiated against him. His suspension continued without any procedural compliance for over a year.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on a regular basis prior to the incident
- FIR No.11 was registered on 03.03.2023
- Suspension order dated 06.03.2023 was issued under Rule 4(5)(b) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970
- Petitioner was granted regular bail on 10.04.2023
- No show cause notice, charge sheet, or inquiry proceedings were initiated between 06.03.2023 and the filing of the writ petition
- The petitioner challenged the indefinite suspension as violative of natural justice and statutory mandates
Procedural History
- 03.03.2023: FIR registered at Vigilance Bureau, Mohali
- 06.03.2023: Suspension order issued by Municipal Council, Kurali (Respondent No.4)
- 10.04.2023: Petitioner released on regular bail
- 07.04.2025: Municipal Council passed Resolution No.220 confirming suspension (Annexure P-13)
- 2026: Writ Petition (CWP-8674-2026) filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
- 20.04.2026: Hearing before Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued that continuous suspension without any inquiry or charge sheet violates Rule 4(5)(b) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, which permits suspension only pending inquiry. He relied on Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291, which holds that suspension cannot be a substitute for inquiry and must be temporary.
Respondents: Initially defended the suspension as lawful under the circumstances. However, during hearing, the State counsel conceded that the grievance had become infructuous as the petitioner had been reinstated.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the suspension order dated 06.03.2023 and Resolution No.220 dated 07.04.2025
- Immediate reinstatement in service
- Payment of subsistence allowance for the entire period of suspension
- Direction to conclude departmental proceedings expeditiously
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether indefinite suspension of a government servant without issuance of a show cause notice, framing of charges, or initiation of departmental inquiry violates Rule 4(5)(b) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 and the principles laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel contended that suspension under Rule 4(5)(b) is a temporary measure pending inquiry and cannot be extended indefinitely without initiating proceedings. He emphasized that the petitioner had been out of service for over 13 months without any formal charge or inquiry, which amounted to punitive action without due process. He cited Ajay Kumar Choudhary to assert that suspension cannot be used as a tool of punishment or to deprive an employee of livelihood without procedural safeguards.
For the Respondent
The State initially defended the suspension as necessary given the nature of the corruption allegations. However, during the hearing, the State counsel, on instructions from the competent authority, conceded that the petitioner had been reinstated and that departmental proceedings were underway. The State did not contest the illegality of the prolonged suspension but argued that the matter had become infructuous due to reinstatement.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that while suspension under Rule 4(5)(b) is permissible pending inquiry, it is not a substitute for inquiry. The petitioner had been suspended for over a year without any show cause notice, charge sheet, or initiation of departmental proceedings. This prolonged inaction rendered the suspension arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.
"Suspension is not a punishment but a precautionary measure pending inquiry. When no inquiry is initiated, the suspension ceases to be lawful and becomes a deprivation of service without due process."
The Court noted that the petitioner had been granted bail, indicating that the criminal proceedings had not progressed to a stage warranting continued suspension. The absence of any procedural steps for over 13 months was held to be a clear violation of the statutory scheme and the precedent in Ajay Kumar Choudhary. The Court further held that reinstatement, though now accomplished, did not absolve the State of its obligation to provide subsistence allowance for the period of unlawful suspension.
The Court emphasized that the State’s obligation to conclude departmental proceedings expeditiously is not optional but mandatory under service jurisprudence. Delay in concluding such proceedings itself constitutes a violation of the employee’s right to fair procedure.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court disposed of the writ petition as infructuous in view of reinstatement but directed:
- The respondents to conclude the pending departmental proceedings within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order
- The petitioner to be paid subsistence allowance for the entire period of suspension, computed in accordance with applicable Rules
- Arrears of subsistence allowance to be paid within six weeks from the date of this order
- Regular payment of subsistence allowance to commence from the date of this order
- Costs of the petition were waived in light of the State’s cooperation
What This Means For Similar Cases
Suspension Cannot Be Indefinite Without Inquiry
- Practitioners must challenge any suspension exceeding three months without a show cause notice or initiation of inquiry
- Rule 4(5)(b) permits suspension only as a temporary measure; prolonged suspension without proceedings is illegal
- The burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate prompt initiation of inquiry
Subsistence Allowance Is a Statutory Right, Not a Concession
- Arrears of subsistence allowance must be computed and paid even if reinstatement occurs
- The right to subsistence allowance accrues from the first day of suspension, regardless of the outcome of criminal or departmental proceedings
- Delays in payment beyond six weeks are actionable under Article 226
Departmental Proceedings Must Be Time-Bound
- Courts will now enforce strict timelines (e.g., four months) for concluding departmental proceedings
- Failure to comply may result in contempt proceedings or further writ relief
- Employers must maintain internal timelines and document progress to avoid judicial intervention
