The Rajasthan High Court recently emphasized that although suspension of government employees is intended as a preventive measure, when prolonged without proper justification, it effectively becomes a disguised punishment. Justice Arun Monga, while hearing a batch of petitions, issued a writ of mandamus directing the State of Rajasthan to enforce a "reasonable timeline" for actions following suspension orders and laid down comprehensive guidelines.
Read also: Supreme Court Summons MoEFCC Secretary Over Delay In Oran Identification In Rajasthan
Suspension, according to the Court, should be an objective decision based on actual necessity. As stated, “suspension must serve public interest; mere registration of an FIR or granting of prosecution sanction cannot automatically justify suspension.” Only serious allegations involving corruption, security threats, financial misconduct, or moral turpitude could validate such measures, especially when the employee's presence could hinder investigation or affect public trust.
Highlighting concerns about indefinite suspension, the Court set clear timelines:
- If no chargesheet is filed within 3 months of suspension, authorities must either revoke it or extend with special reasons in writing.
- Where a chargesheet is filed within 3 months, suspension should not exceed 2 years unless the trial is nearing completion.
- In cases where trials exceed 3 years, alternatives like transfer to non-sensitive posts must be considered instead of continuing suspension.
Read also: Rajasthan High Court Dismisses 'Motivated' PIL Against NTPC-Rajasthan JV, Imposes ₹1.5 Lakh Cost
The Court further directed periodic reviews every 4 months under Rule 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, to assess the necessity of continued suspension.
"Prolonged suspension infringes Article 21, depriving a person of dignified existence. It mimics punishment despite the principle of presumption of innocence," the Court observed, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India.
The judgment also noted that administrative circulars cannot override statutory rules. It instructed that if appeals under Rule 22 are filed by suspended employees, they must be decided within 30 days, and any delay must be properly explained.
Recognizing the practical stigma and financial hardship caused by indefinite suspension, the Court concluded:
"When trials stretch for years, suspension becomes a de facto penalty imposed without a finding of guilt, which is unacceptable."
Read also: Rajasthan High Court Grants Selection Scale to Retired Lecturer Despite Unsigned Application
Therefore, the Court mandated the State Government to immediately sensitize all competent authorities about these guidelines and ensure strict compliance, reaffirming that suspension should not become a tool of punishment but remain an interim administrative measure.
Title: Naru Lal Meghwal v the State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected petitions
