The Rajasthan High Court has issued the guidelines on the suspension of government servants against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending and held that suspension of govt. servant during disciplinary proceedings not punitive but preventive, aims to safeguard evidence.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga has observed that suspension during disciplinary proceedings is intended not as punishment but as a necessary measure to preserve critical evidence and prevent any undue influence over witnesses, thereby ensuring a swift and efficient process.
Suspension Of Govt. Servant During Disciplinary Proceedings: Key Guidelines
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Timely Disciplinary Action: If an employee is suspended in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, those proceedings must begin immediately after suspension and be concluded promptly.
- Defined Timelines: Specific deadlines should be set for each stage of disciplinary proceedings, including as below:
Initiation – Issuance of charge sheet or show cause notice.
Response – Submission of the employee’s reply.
Decision – Review of the reply and determination of further action.
Inquiry – If necessary, initiation and conclusion of a departmental inquiry.
Resolution – Submission and review of the inquiry report, followed by a final decision by the Disciplinary Authority.
- 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.
Background
Suspension of a Government servant, as per service jurisprudence, ordinarily, is and should be resorted to as a preventive measure, not punitive. Likewise, during or pre-trial detention of a suspect in criminal jurisprudence is preventive and not punitive. But, the pressing question is, how to obviate preventiveness as a euphemism for punishment ?
The harsh reality is that, irrespective of legal intent, both suspension and detention are often perceived with disdain by society, inflicting severe damage to one’s public image and leading to profound demoralization.
While suspension, no doubt, is a crucial tool for maintaining discipline and transparency in Government services, it should be exercised with caution, since, in practical terms, suspension is contemptuously perceived.
It shatters the public image of a Government servant and causes stigma with seriously daunting effects. Even if the individual is later cleared of wrongdoing, the negative perception may not fully disappear.
Issue Raised
The issue raised was a legal question concerning the suspension of an employee under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (CCA Rules).
Relevant Laws
The distinction between ‘contemplated’ and ‘pending’ disciplinary proceedings is crucial. A disciplinary proceeding is considered ‘pending’ when a formal show cause notice or charge sheet has been issued, whereas ‘contemplated’ indicates an earlier stage. The Rule 13(1)(a) empowers authorities to suspend a Government servant when disciplinary proceedings are ‘contemplated’ or ‘pending’.
Arguments
The petitioner argued that though suspension may not be a formal punishment, but the reality is that the conditions under which a suspended employee operates are highly detrimental to their career and well-being. The petitioners have been unduly subjected to this burden, which has resulted in significant financial and professional hardship.
The petitioner argued that the petitioners’ suspension is not only illegal, but also unnecessarily prolonged. The denial of financial benefits further compounds their agony. Hence, the suspension order be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to forthwith reinstate the petitioners with all consequential benefits.
Conclusion
The court observed that just as the mandate of timeline to issue charge sheet is to be followed by the suspending / disciplinary authority, likewise upon a Government servant approaching the appellant authority under Rule 22, it shall be incumbent on the appellant authority to dispose of the appeal eitherway within a period of 30 days of its being received in the office of appellant authority. In case the appeal cannot be disposed of within a period of 30 days, reasons in writing be recorded and conveyed to the suspended Government servant.
The court directed the Government of Rajasthan, i.e. through The Secretary Personnel to take appropriate steps to sensitize the concerned authorities of State Government in this behalf and also convey the mandamus as well as Guidelines to them for compliance. Registry of this Court is directed to e-mail a copy of the instant order/judgment to the Chief Secretary as well as The Secretary Personnel of the State.
The court held that 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 web-print of the instant order.
It is however made clear that the quashing of the suspension shall not preclude the department to proceed with the pending or contemplated disciplinary proceedings. They shall be at liberty to initiate or conclude the same, as the case may be, in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case Title: Naresh Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1788/2024
Date: 21/02/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: D.K. Godara
Counsel For Respondent: Sr. Adv./ AAG Rajesh Panwar
Read More: LIVE UPDATES: Justice Yashwant Varma’s Case – Past, Present & Future Developments
