Suspension of public servants must be periodically reviewed as per regulations; failure to do so warrants judicial intervention for appropriate orders.

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Arivalagan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. With consent of both parties, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

3. While the petitioner was working as Junior Engineer -I Grade in the respondent Board, he was involved in a criminal case, which was registered in Crime No. 8 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, on 24.11.2025 and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Consequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension through the impugned proceedings No.023270/Adm/Adm.4/A.I/F.Sup/ 2025, dated 26.11.2025 and is being continued under suspension.

5. Heard both sides and perused the entire materials on record.

6. Sub-regulation (3) of regulation 2 of the Board Regulations reads as follows:-

“3.All cases of suspension beyong the period of four months should be reviewed periodically either by the C.E, or Chairman or by the S.E, as case may be. In cases where, the suspension is not justified for valid reasons, the appropriate authority can revoke the suspension. In cases involving corruption, if the matter has been referred to Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, the suspension may be revoked after consulting the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption not only as a measure to avoid harship to the Board employee concerned, but also to reduce additional expenditure to Board. The competent authorities should make a review of all such cases and examine whether the suspension could not be revoked pending the disciplinary proceedings, in the light of the criteria laid down in the amtter of suspension.”

7. From the perusal of the above, it is evident that there is an obligation on the respondent Board to review the suspension periodically. While the officials of the respondent Board are required to review the suspension, in this case, it has admittedly not been done.

8. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.10856 of 2016, in the case of Bhupinder Singh V. Unitech Ltd., & others, dated 23.01.2025. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:-

“12. There can hardly be any dispute that on expiry of six months period of suspension, ordinarily a Government official would become entitled to subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% of the pay, save and except when such subsistence allowance has to be denied for some valid reasons. We, thus, proceed on a premise that most of the suspended officers/officials are not receiving 75% pay without having to perform any work. Additionally, considering charge sheets have been issued very recently in October, 2024, we can safely infer that the conclusion of the departmental proceedings will take some reasonable time. Similarly, the criminal proceedings pending against the suspended officials, are also not likely to reach to a logical conclusion within a short time.”

9. In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to review suspension order dated 26.11.2025, placing the petitioner under suspension, in accordance with sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 2, and to pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.