Indefinite suspension of an employee without disciplinary proceedings is not permissible and violates principles of natural justice.

Arindam Mukherjee, J.:

Facts of the case

1. The petitioner was a Group–D employee in the office of the Sub-

Divisional Officer, Bishnupur, Bankura since 18th January, 2011. Prior to such appointment, the petitioner was a Night Guard in the said office since 14th April, 1987. On 20th April, 2017, Sri Uday betal, father-in-law of Suman Banerjee, being the son of the petitioner, of village Haldi, P.S. Kotulpur, Bankura lodged a complaint before the Kotulpur Police Station bearing FIR no. 87/2017 dated 20th April, 2017 under Sections 498A/304B/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC).

2. The criminal case was, therefor, in connection with the daughter-in-

law of the petitioner (Ashis Kumar Banerjee) namely, Annapurna Betal, being the wife of Suman Banerjee, the son of the petitioner Ashis Kr. Banerjee (petitioner). On the basis of such complaint, the petitioner was arrested and was in custody for 107 days. The petitioner was enlarged on bail by an order dated 09th September, 2017 passed by this Court in CRM 8768 of 2017. Pursuant to such criminal case, the District Magistrate, Bankura in its office order dated 19th December, 2017 suspended the petitioner. Challenging the said suspension order, this writ petition has been filed.

Petitioner’s case I) It is the case of the petitioner that the suspension order is bad and is required to be set aside and/or quashed particularly, in view of the fact that till 4th February, 2022 being the date of filing of the writ petition, the suspension order continued without initiation of any disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner on having been enlarged on bail, the suspension order ought to have been withdrawn and the petitioner should have been allowed to perform his normal duties.

II) The petitioner has also submitted that suspension for an indefinite period cannot continue even if, the criminal case is pending, as the petitioner as an employee should be considered to be innocent unless he is convicted. It is also the case of the petitioner that there was no embargo in initiating the disciplinary proceedings even during the pendency of the criminal case. Having not done so, the petitioner cannot be left to suffer in definite suspension. The petitioner in support of his argument has relied upon the following judgments:

i) 1999 (6) SCC 257 [ K. Sukhendar Reddy vs. State of A.P. &

Anr.]

ii) Judgment dated 14-11-2000 delivered in WP.ST No. 51 of

1999 [ Akhilendu Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.]

iii) Judgement delivered on 11-4-2011 in AST no. 539 of 2009 with ASTA No. 78 of 2009 [ Akhilendu Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.]

iv) Judgment delivered on 07-03-2011 in WP NO. 16312(W) of

2008 [ Mithun Saha vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

v) Judgment delivered on 30.08.2019 in FMA No. 3541 of 2015:

2019 SCC Online Cal 2717 [ Allahabad Bank vs. Sandipta Gangopadhyay ].

Respondent’s case On behalf of the state, it is submitted that the concerned department on the petitioner being implicated in a criminal case, had lost confidence on the petitioner as a consequence whereof, the petitioner has been suspended. The departmental inquiry has not been initiated since the criminal case is pending. In as much as, charges of criminal incidents were levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner was rightly suspended and the suspension order should not be withdrawn.

Analysis with conclusion.

A. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has reached the age of superannuation on 31st March, 2024. The employer- employee relationship is, therefore, has come to an end. No disciplinary proceedings can be initiated after the petitioner has reached his age of superannuation and it is an admitted fact that till the date of the petitioner being in service, no disciplinary proceedings has been initiated.

B. Apart from the judgments cited by the writ petitioner, the following judgments are also taken into consideration wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discusse