Disciplinary authorities must timely review suspensions in accordance with statutory guidelines and ensure prompt initiation of proceedings.

O R D E R

Heard Mr.I.Pinaygash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Shaji Bino, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to revoke his suspension and to reinstate him in service in a non-sensitive post, in light of the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 81 (Human Resources Development) dated 04.08.2022, by duly considering his representation dated 11.11.2025.

3. The petitioner herein, who was working as a Village Administrative Officer, was placed under suspension through proceedings in Roc.A5/8543/2025 dated 14.08.2025, consequent upon his involvement in Cr.No.16 of 2025 dated 13.08.2025 under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the consequential arrest. The said criminal case is still pending as on date, and more than six months have lapsed since the date of suspension. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a review of his suspension in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 81 (Human Resources Development) dated 04.08.2022, on the ground that no charge memo has been issued as on date and no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated.

4. The respondents filed a counter affidavit contending that the case of the petitioner was referred to the second respondent on 22.01.2026 and is awaiting a reply from the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department in order to decide whether to initiate proceedings under Rule 17-B or to review the suspension.

5. From the above, it is evident that the petitioner was placed under suspension as early as August 2025, and only after a lapse of more than four months was a report sought from the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department in January 2026. Even after a lapse of more than two months, no report has been submitted by the said Department. The purpose and purport of G.O.Ms.No.81 (Human Resources Development), dated 04.08.2022, is to avoid unnecessary and prolonged suspension and to provide for periodic review by the Disciplinary Authority under various circumstances. The guidelines for review of suspension are enumerated under paragraph 11 of G.O.Ms.No.81, which reads as follows:

“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 authoritywho 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, indicat