Prolonged suspension pending criminal proceedings without disciplinary progress is unsustainable where it causes unnecessary drain on public funds and does not serve public interest.

(Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in setting aside the suspension order dated 07.06.2024 and directing to re-instate the respondent into service and post him in some non-sensitive post, this writ appeal has been filed by the Government.

2. The respondent / writ petitioner while working as Assistant Engineer (Civil), was arrested in a trap case on 12.04.2024 by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing and remanded to judicial custody. Pursuant to the remand exceeding 48 hours, he was placed under suspension by order dated 07.06.2024 with effect from 12.04.2024. As the respondent was in prolonged suspension, he challenged the suspension order by way of writ petition relying upon G.O.Ms.No.81 Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 04.08.2022. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs Union of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, and also G.O.Ms.No.81 issued in this regard, allowed the writ petition by impugned order.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case relied upon by the learned Single Judge is not a correct proposition of law. In fact, the Full Bench of this Court in P.Kannan vs. Commissioner for Municipal Administration and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 1154, has clearly held that Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case does not lay down absolute proposition of law that an order of suspension cannot be continued beyond the period of three months if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet has not been served within three months or if the memorandum of charges/charge- sheet is served without reasoned order of extension. Hence, his contention is that the learned Single Judge ought to have relied upon the abovesaid Full Bench judgment. He would further submit that since the respondent is facing serious criminal charges, it cannot be said that suspension cannot be continued beyond the period of three months. 4. Absolutely, there is no dispute with regard to the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General. Of course, the Full Bench in P.Kannan's case (supra) has held that the issue of challenge to the order of suspension should be analyzed on the facts of each case, considering the gravity of the charges and the rules applicable. In this regard, the Government of Tamil Nadu has also issued G.O.Ms.No.81 Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 04.08.2022, formulating certain guidelines. The relevant passage of the said G.O., is extracted hereunder:

''(ix) The time limits mentioned above will not be applicable to cases of Government Servants against whom criminal proceedings have been initiated. However, while sanctioning prosecution in such a criminal case, an examination similar to the one mentioned in item (viii) above shall be made by the competent authority.

(x) ----

(xi) In cases where the charge in the criminal case involves complicated questions of law and fact and the disciplinary authority is not in a position to finalize the departmental disciplinary proceeding and if the criminal case is based on the vigilance report and is pending before the court of law for which no reasons are explained explicitly, the authority competent may take a decision by taking up review of suspension and post the Government Servant in a non- sensitive place in consultation with the appropriate investigating authority / Vigilance Commission on case to case basis in view of the reason that prolonged suspension and paying subsistence allowance for a long period without extracting work is not at all acceptable. Such revocation of suspension can be made based on the facts of each case and after noti