The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that prolonged administrative suspension without timely review violates constitutional guarantees of equality and fair procedure. In a significant ruling under Article 226, the Court directed the state to reconsider the suspension of a government officer whose detention exceeded the one-year limit prescribed under a recent government order, emphasizing procedural regularity over indefinite detention pending inquiry.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Kalingiri Santhi, was appointed as Assistant Commissioner in the Endowments Department of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 10.01.2020. She joined service on 24.04.2020 in Visakhapatnam and served until 30.06.2022. Thereafter, she was transferred to N.T.R. District and assumed charge as Assistant Commissioner-cum-District Endowments Officer on 01.07.2022. While in service, she was placed under suspension pending disciplinary inquiry. On 02.07.2024, the 2nd Respondent issued articles of charge based on a report submitted by the Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments, Rajamahendravaram, dated 28.06.2024. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 23.09.2024. As of the date of filing the writ petition, the disciplinary proceedings had not been concluded.
Key Facts
- Appointment order: 10.01.2020
- Joining date: 24.04.2020
- Transfer and re-posting: 01.07.2022
- Suspension initiated: Prior to 02.07.2024 (exact date not specified in judgment)
- Articles of charge issued: 02.07.2024
- Petitioner’s explanation submitted: 23.09.2024
- Representation for reinstatement filed: 07.07.2025
- Suspension period exceeded one year by at least 10 months as of 07.07.2025
- G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 29.02.2024 prescribed a maximum suspension period of one year, subject to review
- No order of extension or justification for continued suspension beyond one year was produced by the respondents
Procedural History
- Suspension initiated: Before 02.07.2024
- Articles of charge issued: 02.07.2024
- Representation for reinstatement submitted: 07.07.2025
- Writ Petition No. 5119/2026 filed: Before 23.02.2026
- Hearing date: 23.02.2026
- Judgment date: 23.02.2026
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus declaring the continuation of her suspension beyond one year as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. She further prayed for immediate reinstatement with full salary and consequential benefits, and for the quashing of the suspension order dated 02.07.2024.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether continuing an employee’s suspension beyond the one-year limit prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 29.02.2024, without any reasoned review or extension order, constitutes a violation of Article 14 and the principles of natural justice.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the suspension had continued for over a year without any formal extension or justification, in direct contravention of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 29.02.2024, which mandates periodic review of suspensions. The failure to consider her representation dated 07.07.2025 amounted to a denial of audi alteram partem. Reliance was placed on K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to underscore the constitutional right to fair procedure and State of U.P. v. Raj Narain to establish that prolonged suspension without review is arbitrary.
For the Respondent
The Government Pleader contended that the suspension was under active inquiry and that the respondents were bound to act in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 29.02.2024, which provides for review of suspension after one year. However, no specific order of extension or reasons for delay in concluding the inquiry were produced before the Court.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that while suspension pending inquiry is a recognized administrative tool, its continuation beyond the stipulated period without review transforms it into a punitive measure, which is impermissible under constitutional norms. The Court noted that G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 29.02.2024 explicitly prescribes a one-year limit for suspension, with the requirement of review thereafter. The respondents had neither extended the suspension lawfully nor provided any justification for its continuation beyond this period.
"The continued suspension of the petitioner beyond the one-year period prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 29.02.2024, without any review or reasoned order, amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice and the right to equality under Article 14."
The Court emphasized that the petitioner’s representation dated 07.07.2025 remained unacknowledged, depriving her of an opportunity to be heard on the continuation of her suspension. The Court held that administrative convenience cannot override constitutional rights, and that indefinite suspension pending inquiry, without periodic review, is inherently arbitrary.
The Verdict
The writ petition was disposed of with directions. The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 07.07.2025 and review her suspension in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 29.02.2024, and to pass a reasoned order within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall be entitled to full salary for the period of suspension beyond one year, subject to the outcome of the review. No costs were imposed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Suspension Beyond Statutory Limit Is Per Se Arbitrary
- Practitioners must now challenge any suspension exceeding the statutory or circularly mandated period without a formal extension order
- The burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate a valid reason for extension, not the employee to prove its illegality
- Failure to review suspension after one year under G.O.Ms.No.22/2024 renders the continuation unlawful
Review Mechanism Is Mandatory, Not Discretionary
- G.O.Ms.No.22/2024 creates a statutory obligation to review suspensions after one year
- Administrative silence or inaction on representations constitutes a violation of natural justice
- Courts will not tolerate indefinite suspension pending inquiry without periodic scrutiny
Salary Entitlement During Unlawful Suspension
- The judgment implicitly recognizes that salary must be paid for the period of unlawful suspension beyond the one-year limit
- Practitioners should now claim arrears in similar cases, even if reinstatement is pending review
- This sets a precedent for claiming back wages in service matters where suspension exceeds prescribed limits
