Indefinite suspension of an employee violates principles of natural justice and must align with company regulations and legal standards.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN)

The petitioner is an employee of respondent No.1-

Company. On the allegations of misappropriation of funds, an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and a report dated 14.10.2022 has been submitted wherein the charges have been held to be proved. Subsequent to receipt of the said report, respondents have issued show cause notice dated 26.02.2024, asking the petitioner why enquiry report should not be accepted.

2. The petitioner is said to have issued a reply.

However, instead of deciding on the reply of the petitioner, respondent No.1 has simply kept the petitioner under suspension till now. Aggrieved by the same, W.P.No.200895/2025 is filed with a prayer to quash the enquiry report, the show cause notice and the orders of HC-KAR suspension. W.P.No.201343/2025 is filed to set aside the latest suspension order.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that, considering the enquiry report and the explanation given by the petitioner, a decision will be taken in respect of whether to impose any penalty against the petitioner or not as expeditiously as possible.

4. It is seen that the enquiry report is dated

14.10.2022 and show cause notice is dated 26.02.2024. It is submitted that immediately thereafter the petitioner has submitted his reply to the show cause notice. However, the petitioner is said to be under suspension continuously from January 2023. No doubt, respondent No.1-Company has all the liberties to initiate appropriate proceedings against its delinquent employees in accordance with law, but, keeping an employee under suspension also has to be done in accordance with law.

HC-KAR

5. Perusal of the regulations of respondent No.1-

Company does not empower them to keep an employee under suspension without taking any decision. In this case there is an inordinate delay in taking a decision regarding imposition of penalty on the petitioner upon the recommendation of the enquiry officer. Under the said circumstances, I find the order of keeping the petitioner under suspension for such a long time is to be unreasonable and not permissible in law.

6. Under the said circumstances, the orders of suspension on the petitioner is to be revoked at the same time one cannot lose taking note of the fact that an enquiry report has been submitted wherein the petitioner is held in guilty of charges proved and respondent No.1 after hearing the petitioner has to take a decision whether to impose any penalty or not upon the petitioner.

7. Hence, the following:

HC-KAR ORDER i) The respondent-Company shall reinstate the petitioner forthwith into its services and shall offer him a suitable post.

ii) Liberty is granted to respondent No.1 to take a decision on the penalty to be imposed to the petitioner taking into consideration the enquiry report and the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice.

iii) The same shall be done as expeditiously as possible.

iv) Both the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.