Suspension of government servants during criminal proceedings must be justified, not punitive, and requires timely review to uphold fairness and the presumption of innocence.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner (a Teacher Grade-III, Level-II), is before this Court seeking quashing of an administrative order dated 10.02.2021, vide which, he was suspended from service under Rule 13(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 in connection with registration of an FIR No.102/2019 dated 17.08.2019, under Sections 379, 482, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC.

2. Vide an interim order dated 24.02.2021 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, operation and effect of the impugned suspension order was stayed in the following terms:-

“1. In an identical writ petition being SB Civil Writ Petition No. 929/2021 (Chhagan Meghwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.), this Court while issuing notices, has passed the following interim order on18.02.2021 :

“12. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application also, returnable within six weeks.

13. But then, apparently, illegality lies in retrospectivity of the suspension. For this irregularity of giving effect to the suspension from a date anterior to the order, the suspension per-se cannot be stayed and rigours of Rule 13(2) cannot be given a go bye. Hence, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 25.11.2020, to the extent it has been made retrospective, is stayed in the meantime. In other words, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension w.e.f. 25.11.2020, subject to final outcome of the writ petition.”

2. Hence, issue notice. Issue notice of stay application also, returnable within six weeks.

3. Meanwhile, effect and operation of the order dated 10.02.2021, to the extent it has been made retrospective, shall remain stayed, subject to final outcome of the writ petition.

4. It is clarified that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension w.e.f. 10.02.2021.

5. Connect with SB Civil Writ Petition No.929/2021.”

3. Apropos, petitioner continues to discharge his services without being suspended during pendency of the writ proceedings.

4. Controversy centering on the scope and breadth of the core legal issue concerning the continuation of the suspension of a government servant during the pendency of an investigation or criminal trial in connection with a criminal offence, and the parameters governing the same, have been decided in a detailed order/judgment dated 27.03.2025, rendered by this Court in case title Naru Lal Meghwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14863/2016.

5. The reasons and discussion contained in Naru Lal Meghwal’s judgment shall be read as part and parcel of the instant order and same are not being repeated for sake of brevity. However, it is deemed appropriate that the concluding part of the judgment be reproduced for ready reference, which is as below:

“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 affirmative to the second.

25.1. There is no quibble about the proposition that a government servant accused of serious offences—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 conti