Management's prerogative to suspend employees on specific grounds supports judicial restraint from interfering in pending domestic inquiries.

JUDGMENT

Mohammed Nias C.P., J.

The appellant herein is the petitioner in WP(C).No.12360 of 2021 as well as in WP(C).No.20693 of 2021. The first Writ Petition was filed aggrieved by Ext.P34 suspension order issued by the 3rd respondent suspending him from the post of Programme Officer and seeking a direction to reinstate the appellant in service. WP(C).No.20693 of 2021 was filed by the appellant aggrieved by the charge memo issued. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are various grounds on which the suspension order is vitiated. The charges, according to the learned counsel is vague, and is issued by a person against whom complaints were made by the petitioner before the Executive Council of the 3rd respondent. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge found after a detailed discussion of the facts and making observations thereon that the order of suspension cannot be interfered with as specific reasons and grounds were spelled out in the suspension order itself. Finding that, it was prerogative of the management to decide whether to suspend the employee or not, the learned Single Judge, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, did not go into the merits of the allegations, which are to be established the domestic enquiry. In that view of the matter, the challenge against the suspension order was rejected. Consequently, the learned Judge also did not find it necessary to go into the allegations made against the charge memo and dismissed the said Writ Petition as well. It is against the common judgment these Writ Appeals are filed.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are ample grounds to interfere with the order of suspension as well as the charge memo. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge did not accept the allegation of malafides against the 3rd respondent. The learned counsel apprehends that the findings made in the judgment will prejudice the contentions in the domestic enquiry. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that in case this Court is not inclined to interfere either with the suspension order or the charge memo, the observations made in the judgment against those may be expunged as it is likely to influence the domestic enquiry. On a reading of the judgment, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment except to clarify that the domestic enquiry will go on untrammeled by any of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment as regards the merit of the case and all the contentions available to the appellant are left open.

The Writ Appeals are disposed as above.