Prolonged suspension of a government servant during criminal proceedings raises fairness concerns and must adhere to guidelines ensuring timely review and justification.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner (a Patwari), is before this Court seeking quashing of an administrative order dated 16.07.2019, vide which, he was suspended from service under Rule 13(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 in connection with registration of an FIR No.168/2019 dated 25.06.2019 for the offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B IPC.

2. Vide an interim order dated 19.03.2021 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, operation and effect of the impugned suspension order was stayed in the following terms:-

“1. Learned counsel for the petitioner inviting Court’s attention towards office-note (Annex.2), submits that the petitioner has not remained behind the bars from more than 48 hours, thus, his suspension is contrary to Rule 13(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958.

2. He further submits that against the order of suspension dated 16.07.2019, petitioner has preferred an appeal under rule 22 of CCA Rules, 1958, which came to be dismissed by the competent authority vide order dated 12.01.2021 (Annex.8).

3. In view of the aforesaid and considering that the petitioner has not remained behind the bars for more than 48 hours, matter requires consideration.

4. Issue notice. Issue notice of the stay application, returnable within six weeks.

5. Meanwhile, effect and operation of the suspension order dated16.07.2019 (Annex.3) shall remain stayed.”

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 continuance in office 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