Suspension orders must be reviewed within three months, and failure to do so after criminal charges are dropped justifies reinstatement.

O R D E R

Heard Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Kumaravel, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

2. The petitioner was placed under suspension in view of some grave allegations of demanding and accepting the bribe. Subsequently, a criminal case has been registered and after investigation that came to be dropped in Cr.No.02/2016/AC/ER dated 08.11.2021. Even prior to that, charges have been issued to the petitioner.

3. Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tahsildar who was also placed under suspension along with the petitioner on the same set of allegations and the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Challenging the same, the Tahsildar has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.32431 of 2023 and this Court has passed an order by quashing the order of suspension dated 09.03.2021 and directed the respondents to reinstate the Tahsildar into service and that has already been implemented on 15.12.2023. The Tahsildar had joined duty subsequently.

The petitioner is also standing on the same footing but however his suspension has not been revoked so far.

4. Admittedly, a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner and that has been dropped subsequently. It is worthwhile to extract the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.32431 of 2023 which was filed by the delinquent employee, in which, it has been observed as under:-

“5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India , reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, in which, the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was to the effect that the suspension order requires to be reviewed in every three months. Various decisions were later rendered by this Court following the decision of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) which ultimately culminated to passing of G.O.Ms.No.81 Human Resources Management (N) Department dated 04.08.2022, laying guidelines for review of suspension orders. However, the Government Order had excluded the cases relating to the delinquent officers, being involved in criminal case, more particularly, the cases initiated by Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption.

6. The only reason assigned by the respondents in refusing to revoke the suspension order is owing to the pendency of the criminal proceedings initiated by Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption. Admittedly, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption has now dropped the criminal case levelled against the petitioner and the same has been recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Erode on 08.11.2021.

7. In Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case (supra), it was held that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months, if within its period, the memorandum of charges/charge sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/ charge sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the suspension period. It was also held therein that the Government would be at liberty to transfer the concerned employee to a non-sensitive post.

8. In the subsequent Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 04.08.2022, the guidelines of Ajay Kumar Choudary's case were incorporated. However, the Government Order had restricted the applicability to the employees who are involved in criminal cases, more particularly, cases involving the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption.

9. Admittedly, the criminal case initiated by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption against the petitioner herein has been dropped and when no criminal cases is pending against the petitioner, the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.81 would be made applicable. When the respondents have not reviewed the order of suspension on expiry of three months and had not passed a reasoned order for extension of the suspension period and by taking into account that the petitioner is under prolonged suspension for more than 2½ years, th