Rajasthan High Court Issues Guidelines Regarding Suspension Of Government Employees In Cases Where Disciplinary Proceedings Are Either Pending Or Contemplated
The Rajasthan High Court remarked that the suspension of a Government servant should only be resorted to as a preventive measure, not punitive.
The Rajasthan High Court has issued guidelines regarding the suspension of a government employee in cases where disciplinary proceedings are either pending or contemplated.
While issuing the guidelines, the Court quashed the suspension Orders issued against the government employees (Petitioners) while remarking that the suspension of a Government servant, as per service jurisprudence, ordinarily, is and should be resorted to as a preventive measure, not punitive. The Petitions were filed challenging the alleged inaction/delay at the hands of the Respondents in proceeding further after the Petitioners were suspended.
A Single Bench of Justice Arun Monga held, “Furthermore, unwarranted and prolonged suspension not only wastes public funds but also reflects poorly on administrative efficiency. It deprives the department of the services of the employee, particularly if the charges remain unsubstantiated for an extended period. Keeping an employee under suspension for an indefinite period virtually amounts to a penalty, contravening the principle of natural justice. Any suspension beyond a reasonable period or inordinate period due to administrative delays unless justifies by sound and convincing reasons in writing, would ordinarily then be viewed as punitive without there being any punishment order, and thus liable to be quashed.”
Advocate D.K. Godara appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate Rajesh Panwar represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioners challenged their suspensions on the grounds of undue delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings. They contended that the suspension orders were unjustified as no charge sheets had been issued within a reasonable timeframe. Specific cases included employees suspended for alleged financial irregularities and misconduct with suspensions ranging from several months to over six years.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that there was a flagrant violation of the Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (CCA Rules) as despite a sufficiently long lapse of time, neither the disciplinary proceedings were initiated nor any show cause notice/charge sheet was issued.
“On the other hand, they continue to be suspended. An employee cannot be kept under An employee cannot be kept under inordinately long suspension merely because Disciplinary Proceedings were contemplated, without any further substantive progress in actually initiating the same despite inordinate delay,” the Court remarked.
The Bench clarified, “I am thus of the opinion that issuing a show cause notice or charge sheet within reasonable period of suspension is sine qua non for continuation thereof, but its prior issuance is not essential when suspension order is passed by competent authority in contemplation of departmental proceedings.”
Consequently, the Court held, “As an upshot of my discussion and reasoning contained in the preceding part, the impugned suspension orders in four writ petitions…do not stand to the judicial scrutiny of this Court. Same are therefore quashed with the direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioners within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of webprint of the instant order.”
Guidelines
The Court framed the following guidelines to be followed by the Competent Authorities/Head of Departments of State in those cases where suspension orders are warranted either in contemplation or pending departmental proceedings:
“(a). Purpose of Suspension: Suspension is not meant as punishment but serves to protect evidence, prevent witness influence, and ensure smooth disciplinary proceedings. It should only be used when absolutely necessary.
(b). Discretionary Yet Severe: While suspension is neither described nor prescribed as a punitive measure, it has serious repercussions, affecting an employee’s morale, reputation, and financial stability. It also imposes a financial burden on the government.
(c). Prudent Exercise of Authority: Authorities must act with utmost caution, considering all relevant facts before suspending an employee. The decision should be justified by the need to protect evidence and witnesses.
(d). Timely Disciplinary Action: If an employee is suspended in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, those proceedings must begin immediately after suspension and be concluded promptly.
(e). Defined Timelines: Specific deadlines should be set for each stage of disciplinary proceedings, including as below: i. Initiation – Issuance of charge sheet or show cause notice. ii. Response – Submission of the employee’s reply. iii. Decision – Review of the reply and determination of further action. iv. Inquiry – If necessary, initiation and conclusion of a departmental inquiry. v. Resolution – Submission and review of the inquiry report, followed by a final decision by Disciplinary Authority.
(f). Monitoring & Compliance: A mechanism should be established to ensure adherence to these timelines, with periodic reviews and remedial actions, including penalties for defaulters or revocation of unnecessary suspensions.”
Cause Title: Naresh Singh v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. and Connected Matters (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:14231)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates D.K. Godara, Pranjul Mehta, R.S. Saluja, Moti Singh and Tanwar Singh
Respondents: Senior Advocate Rajesh Panwar; AAG B.L. Bhati and Sajjan Singh Rathore; Deputy GC N.K. Mehta; AGC Praveen Singh Chundawat; Advocates Meenal Singhvi, Sandeep Soni, Vaibhav Bang, Rajesh Parihar and Jaya Dadhich
