Prolonged suspension of a government servant without trial constitutes collateral punishment; guidelines established for suspension must ensure fairness and timely reviews.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner (an Accounts Officer), is before this Court seeking quashing of an administrative order dated 18.02.2020, vide which, he was suspended from service. He continues to be thus under suspension till date, for the past 5 years, 1 month, and 20 days.

2. At the very outset, on a Court query, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an FIR No. 114/2015 dated 30.07.2015 for the offences under Sections 376 and 377 of the IPC was registered against the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 10.12.2018. The said order was challenged by filing SBCWP No. 19170/2018 before this Court. Vide order dated 06.02.2019, this Court, while allowing the said writ petition, quashed the order dated 10.12.2018 and observed that the respondents are free to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner was again suspended vide order dated 12.07.2019. Against the said suspension order, the petitioner filed S.B. CWP No.10497/2019, wherein, a Coordinate Bench of this Court granted interim order dated 20.07.2019, staying the effect and operation of the said suspension order. Vide order dated 18.02.2020, services of the petitioner were again placed under suspension under Section 13(1)¼[k½ and 13(2) of the CCA Rules, 1958, on account of registration of same FIR No. 114/2015 dated 30.07.2015 for the aforesaid offences. 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 puni