Prolonged suspension for unrelated criminal case must be reviewed per government guidelines; not automatic continuance.

ORDER :

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings Reg. No. 6761/E4/2025 dated 26.06.2025 issued by the third respondent placing the petitioner under suspension and the impugned charge memo bearing Na.Ka.No.6761/Ni4/2025 dated 09.08.2025 issued against the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr.R.Murugan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Shaji Bino, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. Insofar as the challenge with regard to the impugned charge memo dated 09.08.2025 is concerned, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition as there are no grounds made out for interfering with the impugned charge memo. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the third respondent by filing a counter affidavit that the enquiry pursuant to the impugned charge memo was already conducted and the entire enquiry proceedings have been concluded and a report of the Inquiry Officer was also submitted and the proceedings have reached the final stage. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the third respondent, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned charge memo.

4. Insofar as the order of suspension dated 26.06.2025 is concerned, it is evident that the petitioner was placed under suspension consequent upon his involvement in a criminal case in Crime No.147 of 2025 dated 05.06.2025 and the consequential arrest and remand of the petitioner to judicial custody. Prima facie, it appears that the involvement of the petitioner in the said criminal case is nothing to do with his employment. However, considering the fact that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody, the impugned suspension order came to be issued placing the petitioner under suspension. There is no likelihood of conclusion of the proceedings in the said crime in the near future and the prolonged continuation of suspension is neither in the interest of the third respondent Medical College nor in the interest of the petitioner. As the involvement in the criminal case is no way related to the employment of the petitioner, it is obligatory on the part of the third respondent to review the order of suspension and take a decision as to whether to continue the petitioner under suspension or not.

5. Further, as rightly pointed out by Mr.S.Shaji Bino, learned Special Government Pleader, the Government issued various guidelines dealing with the orders of suspension and prolonged suspension etc in G.O.(Ms.)No.81, Human Resourced Management(N) Department dated 04.08.2022, the Government has laid down guidelines at paragraph No. 11, which reads as under:

“11. The Government, after careful examination, reiterates the guidelines issued in the Government Order second read above with slight modification as follows:-

(i) The power of ordering suspension should be exercised carefully and with restraint. Before a suspension order is issued, the authority concemed must be clear in mind that it is necessary, Prolonged suspension means that Government pays a Government Servant without extracting any work from him. In view of the above position, the suspension should not be resorted to unless the concerned authority has considered all the relevant factors and recorded his reasoned conclusion that it is in the public interest to place the Government Servant under suspension.

(ii) Where a Government Servant has been suspended on disciplinary proceedings contemplated, such proceedings should be initiated immediately and finalized normally within a period of six months.

(iii) In cases, where a Government Servant has been suspended and the matter has been referred for inv