IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that a suspension order can be validly extended and that an employee may waive rights to challenge such orders pending disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

(Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.) :

1. Heard Mr.Chintan Desai, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms.Pooja Ashar, learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondent – State.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition read thus:-

2.1. The petitioner was serving as sweeper (class – IV employee) since 19.10.1991 at Referral Hospital and Community Health Centre, Mahuva, District: Surat. As a part of duty, the petitioner conducted postmortem of the dead body of Narendrabhai Lallubhai Patel, who died in the accident on 08.01.2009 and in view thereof, brother of deceased – Dr.Mahendrabhai Lallubhai Patel registered a complaint with Mahuva police station, District: Surat bearing I-C.R.No.01 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Sections 276 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 177, 184 and 134 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

2.2. At a later point of time, the police came to know that brother of deceased – Dr.Mahendrabhai had taken many individual accident policies in his brother’s name and after the death of his brother, claimed insured amount and, therefore, chargesheet came to be submitted before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahuva for the offences punishable under Sections 193, 195, 279, 304(A), 406, 418, 420, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 177, 184 and 134 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

2.3. It is the case of the petitioner that to conceal the irregularities, the petitioner came to be falsely implicated in the said case and was arrested on 25.07.2012 and thereafter, released on bail on 09.08.2012. The petitioner was kept in judicial custody for more than 48 hours and, therefore, was suspended from 25.07.2012 by the officer under the respondent vide order dated 20.08.2012.

2.4. It is the case of the petitioner that for the incident occurred in the year 2009, the petitioner was suspended after more than three years and if the trial would consume time and continue and if the petitioner would be acquitted and fully exonerated by the respondent - authority, even then, if the petitioner’s suspension is not cancelled, as required under the law, the same would create hardship to the petitioner and his family, which could not be compensated in terms of money. Further, the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community and is not having good financial background.

2.5. During the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner has expired on 19.06.2016 and is represented by the legal heirs, brought on record by order dated 27.02.2020.

3. Mr.Chintan Desai, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the suspension order at Annexure-A is invalid and continuance of suspension by the said order is illegal.

3.1. Reliance is placed on the Government Resolution dated 20.07.2007 bearing No.CVO-122005-1077-Inv.U and it is submitted that the employee suspended to be considered under the order of suspended or suspension during the period of 90 days of the order or in period of extended time by observing if the proper order is not to be issued, then on completion of such time, the order of suspension does not exist.

3.2. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that subsequent to completion of 90 days, the order of suspension is not extended and in view thereof, the petitioner is governed by the said resolution dated 20.07.2007 and the order of suspension for the aforesaid period is required to be revoked.

3.3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner has preferred the present petition and prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(A) This Hon’ble Court please to allow this application;

(B) This Hon’ble Court please to issue a writ of Mandamus and/or Certiorari and or any other Writ, order or directions, directing and quashing and setting aside the suspension order dated 20.08.2012 at Annexure-A to this petition and declaring the same as capricious, illegal, violation of principle of natural justice, unconstitutional and bad in law and direct the responde