The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed that prolonged suspension without a reasoned order violates the constitutional rights of a government employee, even if termination subsequently renders the original relief infructuous. While the petition for reinstatement and back payment of subsistence allowance was dismissed as infructuous due to termination, the Court granted liberty to challenge the termination order separately, reinforcing that financial hardship during suspension engages Article 21 protections.
The Verdict
The petitioner lost on the specific reliefs sought - reinstatement and back payment of subsistence allowance - because his services were terminated during the pendency of the writ petition. However, the Court held that the absence of a reasoned order extending suspension beyond three months, as mandated by Supreme Court precedent, renders such suspension procedurally flawed. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to challenge the termination order separately, affirming that the right to subsistence allowance during suspension is constitutionally protected under Article 21.
Background & Facts
The petitioner, a government employee, was suspended on 23 January 2021 under Rule 9(a) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, on allegations of fraud in pay slip preparation and unauthorized fund transfers to family members. He submitted a representation on 28 December 2022 under Rule 53 of the Fundamental Rules, seeking reinstatement and 75% subsistence allowance. No action was taken on this representation, and the suspension continued for over two and a half years without any reasoned order justifying its extension.
The petitioner filed a writ petition in the Chhattisgarh High Court challenging the prolonged suspension and non-payment of subsistence allowance. He relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, which mandates that suspension cannot extend beyond three months unless a reasoned order is passed for its continuation. He also cited a coordinate bench judgment of this Court in Sushri Nirmala Chaturvedi, which directed all departments to comply with this principle.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent authorities issued a termination order dated 31 January 2024, effectively ending the petitioner’s service. The respondents argued that this rendered the reliefs of reinstatement and back payment of subsistence allowance infructuous.
The Legal Issue
The central legal question was whether the prolonged suspension of a government employee without a reasoned order for extension violates Article 21 of the Constitution, and whether the non-payment of subsistence allowance during such suspension constitutes a denial of the right to livelihood and fair procedure. A secondary issue was whether the termination of service during pendency of a writ petition automatically extinguishes the right to challenge the legality of the suspension and claim subsistence allowance.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that suspension is an administrative measure, not a penalty, and that the right to subsistence allowance under Rule 53 of the Fundamental Rules is a statutory and constitutional entitlement. He contended that non-payment deprives the employee of the means to defend himself in disciplinary proceedings, thereby violating Article 21. He relied on Ajay Kumar Choudhary (2015) to assert that suspension beyond three months without a reasoned order is illegal. He further cited Sushri Nirmala Chaturvedi (2017) to show that this Court had previously mandated compliance with the Supreme Court’s directive.
For the Respondent
The respondents’ counsel conceded that the suspension order was not accompanied by a reasoned extension order but argued that the termination order dated 31 January 2024 rendered all reliefs sought in the writ petition infructuous. They submitted that since the petitioner was no longer in service, the Court could not grant reinstatement or back payment of subsistence allowance, and that the petition should be dismissed on that ground alone.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the validity of the petitioner’s legal submissions regarding the requirement of a reasoned order for suspension extension, as laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary. It noted that the absence of such an order for over two and a half years was a clear procedural lapse. The Court agreed that the non-payment of subsistence allowance during prolonged suspension creates financial hardship that impedes an employee’s ability to defend himself, thereby infringing upon his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
"The right to subsistence allowance is not a bounty but a constitutional safeguard to ensure that a suspended employee is not rendered destitute while facing disciplinary proceedings."
However, the Court held that the subsequent termination order dated 31 January 2024 had extinguished the petitioner’s employment relationship. Consequently, the reliefs of reinstatement and payment of subsistence allowance from the date of suspension were no longer maintainable. The Court emphasized that while the legality of the suspension may have been flawed, the termination order, if challenged separately, could be the appropriate forum to seek redress for any wrongful termination or denial of dues.
The Court declined to adjudicate the merits of the suspension order because the subject matter had ceased to exist. Yet, it explicitly recognized the constitutional gravity of the situation and granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the termination order through appropriate legal remedies.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment clarifies that while termination of service during pendency of a writ petition may render specific reliefs infructuous, it does not extinguish the underlying legal principles. Practitioners must now recognize that even if an employee is terminated, the illegality of prolonged suspension without reasoned orders remains actionable in a separate challenge to the termination. This opens the door for claims of wrongful termination based on procedural violations in the suspension process.
The ruling reinforces that subsistence allowance under Rule 53 is not discretionary but mandatory, and its denial during suspension is a violation of Article 21. Future petitions should be framed to challenge both the suspension and termination together where possible, to avoid procedural bar. Employers must now ensure that every extension of suspension is accompanied by a reasoned order, or risk having the termination order itself invalidated on grounds of procedural unfairness.
The Court’s grant of liberty to challenge termination is a significant procedural safeguard. It signals that courts will not allow technical extinguishment of relief to shield systemic procedural violations.
