Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 390
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.
Shashi Bala - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others - Respondents
CWP No. 7964 of 2022
Decided On : 14-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: R.K. Gautam, Pawan Gautam
For the Respondents: Pushpinder Jaswal, Onkar Jairath
Indefinite suspension of an employee is impermissible; timely review of suspension orders is essential to ensure justice.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India - Article 12 - H.P. Primary Agriculture Co-operative Credit Societies Employees (Terms of Employment & Working Conditions) Rules, 2001 - Suspension of employee - The petitioner was suspended on 29.06.2019 pending disciplinary proceedings, which concluded with exoneration, yet suspension remained unrevoked - The Court emphasized that suspension cannot be indefinite and must be reviewed within a reasonable timeframe. (Paras 1, 3, 10)
(B) Judicial Review - The Court held that it has the jurisdiction to intervene under Article 226 to ensure justice is served, particularly when disciplinary proceedings are prolonged without resolution. (Paras 5, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Secretary, was suspended pending disciplinary proceedings initiated against her, which concluded with a report exonerating her from charges, but the suspension order was not revoked.
Findings of Court:
The Court directed the immediate revocation of the suspension order dated 29.06.2019, allowing the petitioner to resume her duties.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the prolonged suspension and the necessity of timely review of such orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that indefinite suspension is impermissible and must be reviewed within a reasonable period, emphasizing the need for timely resolution of disciplinary matters.
Result: The order of suspension dated 29.06.2019 is revoked, and the petitioner is allowed to resume her duties.
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
“i) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned suspension order dated 29.06.2019 (Annexure P-5), which is has lost its significant after exoneration the petitioner from all the charges levelled against her and impugned loner dated 03.03.2022 (Annexure P-20). which communicated to the petitioner through a registered letter, being illegal, invalid, wrong, unwarranted, unjustified, unsustainable in law and have been issued in violation of the H.P. Primary Agriculture Co-operative Credit Societies Employees (terms of employment & working conditions) Rules, 2001 and in violation of principle of natural justice.
(ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus thereby directing the respondents, to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of her service and with all consequential benefits and further direct the respondent No. 3, to decide the appeal of the petitioner against the demotion order dated 22.10.2020 within the stipulated period, to be granted by this Hon'ble Court.
iii) Arrear of consequential benefits on account of filing the present writ petition may kindly be ordered to be paid with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of his reinstatement of the petitioner.”
2. This Court is not dwelling on any other issue except the grievance of the petitioner qua Annexure P-5, dated 29.06.2019, in terms whereof, the petitioner has been placed under suspension since the year 2019.
3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner, who is working as an Assistant Secretary, was placed under suspension on 29.06.2019 vide Annexure P-5, in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings initiated against her. As per the petitioner, inquiry held in the disciplinary proceedings, culminated into filing of a report, in terms whereof, the petitioner was not found guilty of the charges levelled against her, yet no action till date has been taken by the Disciplinary Authority on the said Inquiry Report, nor the suspension order has been revoked.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Society has, inter alia, submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as the respondent-Society is neither “Other Authority” nor “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and though the Society has acted upon the report of the Inquiry Officer, but as it is Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, who in terms of the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Co- Operative Societies Act, 1968, has to accord necessary approval in the matter, therefore, in the absence of such approval coming from the Authority, the Society is helpless. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has stated that the approval sought for by the Society was declined by the Assistant Registrar in terms of Annexure P-32.
5. Be that as it may, having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case wherein this Court should exercise its jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure that justice is done to the petitioner.
6. Though, during the course of hearing of this petition, it could not be demonstrated by the petitioner that there is deep and pervassive control over the functioning of the respondent-Society of the State, but fact of the matter remains that the disciplinary proceedings which have been initiated against the petitioner are in terms of the provisions of the H.P. Primary Agriculture Co-operative Credit Societies Employees (terms of employment & working conditions) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as "the 2001 Rules") which Rules have been framed in terms of Rule 56 of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1971. After the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the order of suspension being passed against her, said order cannot
