Prolonged suspension of government servants without trial constitutes a de facto penalty; guidelines established for timely review and adherence to principles of justice.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner (a Veterinary Officer), is before this Court seeking quashing of an administrative order dated 10.02.2016, vide which, he was suspended from service. He continues to be suspended till date for past 8 years and 2 months.

2. At the very outset, on a Court query, counsel for the petitioner informs that wife of the petitioner lodged an FIR No.305/2015 dated 22.07.2015 against the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 377 and 509 of IPC, and in contemplation of departmental proceedings pursuant thereto, his services were put under suspension on 10.02.2016. From the record appended with the petition and the pleadings, it is not borne out as to what is the current status of pending trial/criminal proceedings. There is no interim protection in favour of the petitioner on his suspension.

3. Be that as it may, in this context, reference may be had to a judgment dated 27.03.2025 rendered by this Court in the case titled Naru Lal Meghwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14863/2016, relevant portion of which, is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“CONCLUSION

25. Two questions thus arise i.e. first, whether a government servant, either accused in an FIR or an under trial in a pending criminal proceeding or proposed to be prosecuted upon grant of administrative sanction for prosecution, can continue to be suspended from service until the conclusion of trial till he is acquitted ? Second, does such a suspension, when prolonged due to delay not attributable to the suspended government servant, constitute a collateral punishment, imposed solely on the state’s harboring a suspicion that the accused government servant will ultimately be convicted in the pending criminal proceedings? In light of the circulars, ibid, and the judicial precedents, the answer to first question is in negative, while it is in afÏrmative to the second.

25.1. There is no quibble about the proposition that a government servant accused of serious offenses—say, corruption, fraud, or moral turpitude—may erode public confidence if allowed to continue in service. Suspension serves as a precautionary measure to prevent the employee from leveraging their position to obstruct justice. The power to suspend is inherent in the employer’s disciplinary authority, particularly when the employee’s continuance in ofÏce could prejudice the investigation or trial. The state has a legitimate interest in maintaining the integrity of public administration. The pendency of a trial, coupled with the gravity of the charges, justifies keeping the employee out of active duty until the cloud of suspicion dissipates. Seen from that angle, the state may be right to argue that acquittal is the only definitive proof of innocence in such cases, and until that threshold is met, suspension is warranted. But, not quite so in every case.

26. However, on the flip side, prolonged suspension raises serious concerns about fairness, equity, and the presumption of innocence—a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence enshrined in Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reflected in common law systems. Suspension, though not a punishment in theory, has punitive consequences in practice: loss of income (beyond subsistence allowance), stagnation of career, and social stigma. When trials drag on for years—a common reality in overburdened judicial system in India—suspension becomes a de facto penalty imposed without a finding of guilt. The employer state often suspends an employee not because guilt is established but because it harbors a suspicion of eventual conviction. This approach risks inverting the burden of proof: instead of the prosecution proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the employee must endure suspension until they prove their innocence through acquittal. Legally, suspension is an interim measure, not a penalty, is the settled position, yet, when prolonged, its effects mirror those of punishment or “disguised” punishment.

27.