The Disciplinary Authority must review suspension orders according to guidelines established by G.O.Ms.No.81.

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings in RDOSNKL/3413/2025 dated 11.10.2025, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension consequent to his involvement in a criminal case under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. More than five months have elapsed since the date of suspension.

Hence, the petitioner has challenged the said order of suspension dated 11.10.2025, contending that the continuance of suspension of the petitioner is contrary to the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.81, Human Resources Management (N) Development Department, dated 04.08.2022.

3. Mr.V.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the second respondent is under an obligation to review the suspension and to consider whether it is necessary to continue the petitioner under suspension.

4. Mr.B.Ramanathan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, submits that in view of the involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.81, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 04.08.2022, are not applicable and therefore, there is no obligation on the part of the second respondent to review the suspension.

5. This Court, having heard the learned counsel on either side and having perused the orders in G.O.Ms.No.81, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 04.08.2022, is of the considered view that there is an obligation cast upon the Disciplinary Authority to review the suspension in terms of the orders issued by the Government in the said G.O. Having perused the entire material, this Court finds that certain guidelines have been laid down in Paragraph 11 of the said G.O., 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 concerned 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 investigation to the Director of Vigilance and Anti- Corruption for enquiry, the latter should complete the enquiry and send the report to Government through the Vigilance Commission within one year.

(iv) In respect of cases referred to under items (ii) and (iii) above, the authority who ordered the suspension or the Director of Vigilance and Anti- Corruption, as the case may be, should, before the expiry of the period of three months, report the matter to the Head of the Department/Government, indicating the progress of the disciplinary action/investigation by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, the reasons for non completion of the work and the further time required for completing the disciplinary action / investigation and furnish reasons for continuing the suspension, if continued suspension is felt essential. If t