Prolonged suspension requires time-bound disciplinary enquiry conclusion; failure mandates reinstatement subject to proceedings.

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed seeking writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the Memo No.MKU/Estt-IV/2023 dated 03.04.2023 issued by the respondent University placing the petitioner under suspension.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Through the impugned proceedings, the petitioner was placed under suspension, as the petitioner was arrested in a criminal case. However, subsequently the said suspension was reviewed by the respondent University and an order was passed vide proceedings dated 27.09.2023 and the request of the petitioner to reinstate him into service was negatived on the ground that the charge memo dated 13.09.2023 was already issued and the same is pending for enquiry. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner, though, filed W.P.(MD)No.26107 of 2023 on

27.09.2023, he has chosen to withdraw said writ petition on 06.11.2023. While things stood thus, the petitioner once again approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, challenging the original suspension order dated 03.04.2023 on the ground of prolonged suspension.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the issue of prolonged suspension has been considered by the respondent University pursuant to an order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.17420 of 2023 and rejected his request, viz., proceedings in Ref.No.Estt.IV/2/2023 dated 27.09.2023. Without challenging the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court and allowed the said order to become final.

5. It is also further stated in the counter affidavit that the enquiry that was initiated against the petitioner vide charge memo dated 03.09.2023 could not be finalized due to certain allegations that were made against one of the committee members by the complainant and recently, a separate Committee has been constituted through Board Resolution dated 27.02.2026. The enquiry that was initiated against the petitioner would be concluded as the earliest. It is also further contended that the request of the petitioner for reinstatement also has been considered by the respondent University in its Syndicate meeting that was held on 07.11.2025 and felt that the same is required to be deferred, pending conclusion of the departmental enquiry that was already initiated against the petitioner.

6. In the light of the above situation and taking into consideration that the suspension of the petitioner was reviewed on two occasions by the respondent University and they deem it fit to continue the petitioner's suspension pending conclusion of the enquiry, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said suspension order at this stage.

7. At the same time, it is also necessary to notice that the prolonged suspension of an employee, especially, a person holding the post of Assistant Professor, for such a prolonged period of nearly 3 years is neither in the interest of the respondent University nor in the interest of the petitioner herein. Without extracting any work, the respondent University would be paying huge amounts towards subsistence allowance to the petitioner and at the same time, the prolonged suspension also would cause a stigma on the petitioner in the eyes of the society. Therefore, in these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that it would be appropriate to fix a time frame for the respondent University to conclude the disciplinary proceedings that were already initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the charge Memo dated 03.09.2023 and in case if the respondent University fails to adhe