Suspension Chitra Term Paper PDF

SUSPENSION AND SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE:
AN ANALYSIS
TERM PAPER
SUBMITTED TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF LAWS, PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF LL.M – I SEMESTER
(COURSE: 2017-18)
SUPERVISED BY SUBMITTED BY
Dr. Babita Devi Pathania Chitralekha Katoch

Assistant Professor Roll No. 1241/17
Department of Laws First Semester
Panjab University Constitution Group
Chandigarh LL.M (I Year)
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Ms. Chitralekha Katoch, a student of LL.M, I Semester of the
Department of Laws, Panjab University, Chandigarh has worked under my
guidance and supervision in the preparation of her Term Paper titled ―SUSPENSION
AND SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE: AN ANALYSIS‖, which is in partial requirement
for the degree of Masters of Law. The paper is worthy of consideration.
Date: Dr. Babita Devi Pathania

Assistant Professor
Department of Laws
Panjab University
Chandigarh
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I wish to acknowledge my deep debt of gratitude to Dr. Babita Devi Pathania, Assistant Professor
in Department of Laws, Panjab University, Chandigarh, who despite her pre-occupation with her
academic and administrative work, very kindly agreed to undertake the supervision of this paper.
I express my sincere gratitude to her, under whose able guidance I was able to complete the task
at hand both effectively and efficiently and well within the prescribed time period. I am
immensely thankful for her unfailing interest and support throughout this paper.
I owe a great deal to my parents and I wish to take this occasion to thank them for their undying
efforts on me; to my mother, Mrs Anuradha Katoch, for her unconditional support throughout my
journey, and to my father, Col. Harish Katoch, without whom I would not have had the courage
nor the patience to successfully complete this task. I am eternally grateful to both of them.
-Chitralekha Katoch
ii
INDEX
TABLE OF CASES iv
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ix
RESEARCH QUESTIONS ix
PART I- THE CONCEPT OF SUSPENSION 1
Introduction 1
Object of Suspension 2
PART II- SUSPENSION AND ITS CLASSIFICATION 3
General 4
Interim Suspension 5
Deemed or Automatic Suspension 6
Authorities competent to Suspend 8
PART III- SUSPENSION AND ITS CONSIDERATIONS 10
When Suspension is resorted to 10
Suspension when effective 13
Suspension pending inquiry 13
When Suspension should not be resorted to 16
Application of mind and Sufficient Reasons for Suspension 17
Effects of Prolonged Suspension 18
Duration and Revocation of Suspension 21
PART IV- ESSENTIALS OF SUSPENSION 27
Resignation and Retirement 27
Challenging the Order of Suspension 28
PART V- SUSPENSION AND SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE 30
Meaning 30
Entitlement of Subsistence Allowance 31
Formalities to be complied with for Effective Payment 33
Non-Payment: Violation of Natural Justice 33
CONCLUSION 35
BIBLIOGRAPHY 38
iii
TABLE OF CASES
SR.
CASE NAME CITATION
NO
1. A. P. Jai Narain Rai v. S. S. P., Allahabad 1998 (6) SLR (All.) 790
1991 (3) SLR (CAT-Mad.)
2. A. Palanisamy v. Union of India
288
3. A.V. Mohal, v. Senior Superintendent of Post Office AIR 1991 SC 328
4. Agnihotram Ananthacharayalu v. Executive Officer AIR 1958 AP 325
5. Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India AIR 2015 SC 2389.
6. Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan 1998 (6) SLR (Raj.) 753
7. Anwara Nisha Khatoon v. State of Bihar AIR 2002 SC 2959
Appasabel Annappa Seryuppi v. The Town Municipal
8. AIR 1972 Mys 33
Council Ramdurg
9. B. Srinivasulu v. Secretary, State Legislature 1994 (8) SLR (A.P.) 359
10. B.B. Mondal v. State of West Bengal (1973) 1 SLR 1017
11. B.R. Patel v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 800
12. Balbir Chand Josan v. Chandigarh Administration 2011 (4) SLR 734
13. Baljeet Singh v. State of Punjab 1996 (7) SLR (P. & H.) 248
14. Bhanu Prasad v. State AIR 1956 Sau 14
15. Bird v. British Ltd. (1945) KB 336
Board of Management of S.V.T. Educational Institution v.
16. AIR 1997 SC 1898
A. Raghupathy Bhat
17. Board of Management v. A. Raghupathy Bhat 1997 (1) SLR (SC) 713
18. C.D. Kale v. Nagpur Improvement Trust 1997 (3) SLR (By.) 261
19. Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited (1999) 3 SCC 679
20. Chander Shekhar Saxena v. Director, Education, Lucknow 1997 (8) SLR (All.) 357
21. D.K. Puri v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi 1998 (2) SLR (Delhi) 134
22. D.S. Iyar v. I.G. of Police (1971) Lab IC 937
23. Dandapani Gouda v. State of Orissa AIR 1953 Ori 329
24. Dhanabendra Roy v. State of West Bengal 1998 (5) SLR (Cal.) 542
25. Dilip Kumar Sarkar v. University of North Bengal 2011 (3) SLR 451
26. Dulal Krishna Kanjilal v. State of West Bengal 1988 (2) SLR 807
iv
27. G. Prahlad v. State of Karnataka 1980 (2) SLR 461 (Kant)
28. G.N. Srivstava v. State of Bihar AIR 1955 Pat 131
29. Ganesh Ram v. State of Bihar (1995) 2 Pat LJR 690
30. Ghanshyam Das Shrivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1973 SC 1183
31. Ghouse Mohammad v. State of Andhra AIR 1957 SC 246
32. Gopalkrishna Naidu v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 Nag 170
33. Gopi Nath Kund v. Bank of India (1980) 1 CHN 176
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs v. Tarak
34. AIR 1971 SC 823
Nath Ghose
35. Gurdeva Narayan Srivastava v. State of Bihar AIR 1955 Pat 131
36. Gurpal Singh v. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan (2012) 13 SCC 94
37. H.L. Mehra v. Union of India AIR 1974 SC 1281
38. Hanley v. Pease and Partners Ltd (1915) 1 KB 66
Hirendra Nath Bakshi v. Life Insurance Corporation of
39. AIR 1976 Cal 88
India
40. Hotel Imperial, New Delhi v. Hotel Workers’ Union AIR 1959 SC 1342
41. Inayathulla v. Dy. Conservator of Forests 1982 (2) Kar. L.J. 432
42. Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. AIR 2000 SC 2806
43. Jagjit Singh v. State of U.P. 1995 (1) SLR (All.) 536
44. K. C. Azad v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1991 (3) SLR 326
45. K. Laxman v. Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. 1998 (6) SLR (A.P.) 484
46. K. Sukhendar Reddy v. State of A.P., (1999) 6 SCC 257
1994 (6) SLR (CAT-Mad.)
47. K. Unnikumarann v. Dir. General, Ordnance Factory
464
48. K.C. Azad v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1991 (3) SLR 326
49. K.K. Jaggia v. State AIR 1968 Punj 97
50. K.K. Ramanutty v. State of Kerala (1972) 2 LLJ 509
51. Kalipada Ghosh v. State of West Bengal 2011 (8) 76 (Cal.).
52. Keshari Prasad v. Union of India 1996 (1) SLR (All.) 217
53. Khem Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2013 (6) SLR 431 (All.)
54. Khem Chand v. Union of India AIR 1963 SC 687
55. Kiran Sharma, v. State of Haryana 1996 (5) SLR 670
v
56. Mahabir Singh v. State of Haryana (2011) 2 SLR 638
Managing Director, U.P. Warehousing Corporation v.
57. AIR 1980 SC 840
Vijay Narayan Vajpayee
58. Mohammad Azam v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1958 AP 619.
59. Mohd. Ghouse v. State of A.P. AIR 1957 SC 246
Motor Industrial Co. Limited v. Additional Labour Court,
60. (1988) 2 LLN 260
Bangalore
61. Mritunjai Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1971) SLR 523
62. Narayana Prasad v. State of Orissa AIR 1957 Ori 51
63. Narsingha Murari Chakravarty v. District Magistrate, AIR 1961 Cal 225
Nasirkhan Niwaskhan Pathan v. Dist. Dept. Officer,
64. AIR 2002 Guj 143
Bharuch
65. Nepal C. Dey v. Registrar, Coopt. Societies 1995 (1) SLR (Cal.) 413
66. O.P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 2257
67. Om Prokash Gupta v. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 600
68. P.R. Nayak v. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 554
P.S. Dudiala v. Council of Scientific and Industrial
69. (1975) Lab IC 1617
Research
70. Parmabhai v. Shivanand Jha (1992) 2 SLR 98
Praduat Kumar Bose v. Chief Justice, Calcutta High
71. AIR 1956 SC 285
Court
72. Pranalal Manilal Parikh v. State of Gujarat (1995) 2 LLJ 690
73. Pratap Singh (Dr.) v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 Punj 298
74. Principal J.D. Patil Sangludkar v. Ganesh (2003) 9 SCC 164
75. Punjab National Bank v. Jagdish Singh AIR 1999 SC 1577
76. Puran Dass v. Union of India 1998 (3) SLR (H.P.) 524
77. R. C. Saini v. H.U.D.A., Panchkula 1996 (5) SLR (P. & H.) 15
78. R. N. Mishra v. State of West Bengal 2011 (1) SLR 709
79. R.P. Kapur v. Union of India AIR 1964 SC 787
80. R.P. Kapur v. Union of India AIR 1963 Punj 87
81. Ram Gopal Nigam v. State (1968) Lab IC 1476
82. Ram Lakhan v. Presiding Officer AIR 2001 SC 286
83. Ram Lakhan v. Presiding Officer AIR 2000 SC 1946
vi
84. Raman Kutty v. State (1973) 1 SLR 408
85. Ramoo Ramesh v. Andhra Bank 1992 (3) SLJ 144
86. Ranjit Singh v. Union of India (2006) 4 SCC 153
87. Ravi Kumar v. State of Punjab 1997 (1) SLR (P. & H.) 776
Regional Director, E.S.I.C v. M/s. Popular Automobiles
88. 1997 (5) SLR (S.C.) 628
Ltd.
89. Rupa Ram v. Divisional Superintendent N.W. Rly. Lahore AIR 1954 Punj 298
90. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 2257
91. S.P. Jain v. Punjab National Bank 1993 (1) SLR 517 (Del).
1995 (8) SLR (Karnataka)
92. S.R. Subramanyan v. Indian Bank
351
93. S.V.G. Iyengar v. State of Mysore AIR 1961 Mys 37
94. Secy. of State v. Surendra Nath AIR 1938 Cal 759
95. Seoti Prasad v. Raghubir Datt (Dr.) AIR 1960 All 273
96. Shri S.K. Srivastava v. Union of India & Others 2009 (3) AISLJ (CAT) 387
Smt. Kabita Sit v. The W.B. Board of Secondary
97. 2011 (4) SLR 329 (Cal.).
Education
98. State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan AIR 1988 SC 1833
99. State of Bihar v. Arbind (2013) 16 SCC 615
100. State of Haryana v. Hari Ram Yadav AIR 1994 SC 1262
1983 (3) SLR 49 (Kant—
101. State of Karnataka v. R.S. Naik
DB)
102. State of Kerala v. Sugatha Kumar 1998 (7) SLR (Kerala) 111
103. State of M.P. v. Shankar Lal (2008) 2 SCC 55
104. State of M.P. v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1977 SC 1466
105. State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale AIR 1983 SC 803
106. State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty (1994) 4 SCC 126
107. State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh (1997) 2 SCC 550
108. State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram AIR 1970 SC 214
109. State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram AIR 1970 SC 214
110. State of Punjab v. Mewa Singh 1982 (2) SLR (P. & H.) 611
111. State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Chandra (1976) Lab IC 385
112. State of U.P. v. Ajit Singh AIR 1999 SC 2863
vii
113. Sub-Divisional Officer v. Shambhoo Narain Singh AIR 1970 SC 140
114. Subramanian v. State of Kerala (1973) SLR 521
115. Sudarshan Kumar v. State of Haryana 1995 (2) SLR (P. & H.) 793
116. T. Cajee v. Jormanik Siem (U) AIR 1961 SC 276
117. T.L. Anantharaman v. Union of India (1979) 1 LLJ 438
118. T.R.G. Nair v. Manager, K.P.S.R.M.H. School 1998 (6) SLR (Kerala) 434
119. Tarak Nath Ghose v. Government of India AIR 1967 Pat 81
120. Tek Chand Jain v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1975) 2 SLR 233
The Management of Tube Products of India v. Presiding
121. 1993 Lab IC 627 (Mad).
Officer
122. Tushar Kanti Das v. State of West Bengal (1984) Lab IC 1112
U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad v. Sanjiv
123. 1993 (4) SLR 543
Rajan
124. Udai Veer Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2011 (8) 796 (All.)
125. Union of India and Others v. Dipak Mali (2010) 5 MLJ 1132
126. Union of India v. Rajiv Kumar AIR 2003 SC 2917
127. Union of India v. S.K. Sarkar AIR 2001 SC 1092
128. V.P. Gidroniya v. State AIR 1967 MP 231
129. V.P. Gindronia v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1970 SC 1497
130. V.R. Patel v. State of Maharashtra (1968) SLR 593
viii
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In this research work, analytical research methodology and a detailed study has been undertaken
to understand the purview of suspension and subsistence allowance and their interdependence.
The existing research available on the topic has been carefully studied and evaluated. Sources for
the purpose of research include commentaries and digests on service law apart from the statutes,
books, government and other scholarly articles available. Necessary assistance has also been
taken from relevant and authentic websites. This research work aims to analyze the concept of
Suspension while highlighting the role of Subsistence Allowance and its impact on the service of
a Government servant. Emphasis has been laid on the C.C.A. (C.C.S.) Rules, 1965 during the
research work.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The paper aims to tackle the following problems-
1. What is the idea behind inclusion of the provision of Suspension under Service Law?
2. What are the necessary considerations before ordering Suspension of a Government
Servant?
3. What is the relationship between Suspension and Subsistence Allowance?
4. What is the relevance of Subsistence Allowance during Suspension?
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
This research paper aims to reach the following conclusions-
1. To understand the concept and objective of Suspension and Subsistence Allowance.

2. To evaluate the legal provisions dealing with Suspension and Subsistence Allowance.
3. To study the interdependence of Suspension and Subsistence Allowance.
4. To examine the effects of Suspension and the impact of Subsistence Allowance in the
service of the Government servants.
5. To provide a valid justification for the continuation of these provisions under Service
matters in future.
ix
The Concept of Suspension
THE CONCEPT OF SUSPENSION
“Suspension is not a Rule, but an Exception”
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Suspension according to the Oxford Dictionary means:
‗The action of suspending or the condition of being suspended; the action of debarring or
state of being debarred, especially for a time, from a function or privilege; temporary deprivation
of one‘s office or position.‘1
Suspension is an executive action whereby a Government servant is kept out of duty temporarily
pending final action being taken against him for acts of indiscipline, delinquency, misdemeanor,
etc. Suspension literally means the act of debarring for a time from a function or privilege. It
means a temporary deprivation of one‘s office or position.2 The word suspension generally
connotes temporary deprivation of office, position or of one‘s privilege.3 Suspension is a
temporary deprivation of office and its privileges. A suspended person does not lose his office
nor his status or position. His powers, functions and privileges remain in abeyance.4
When allegations of a serious nature are received against a Government servant and it is decided
to initiate inquiries into such allegations, disciplinary proceedings must be considered to have
been started against him and pending such and inquiry the officer concerned can be suspended as
a first step even before any charges are framed against him. The term refers to or comprehends
both types of suspension viz. suspension by way of punishment and suspension pending a
disciplinary enquiry.5 The term means that the employee ceases to be under duty and the
employer is under no obligation to pay.6
1
THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY, 1443 (2000).
2
Dandapani Gouda v. State of Orissa, AIR 1953 Ori 329; See DOABIA & DOABIA, THE LAW OF SERVICES AND
DISMISSALS, 2 (Lexis Nexis, 2015).
3
Mohammad Azam v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1958 AP 619.
4
Nasirkhan Niwaskhan Pathan v. Dist. Dept. Officer, Bharuch, AIR 2002 Guj 143.
5
Appasabel Annappa Seryuppi v. The Town Municipal Council Ramdurg, AIR 1972 Mys 33.
6
Bird v. British Ltd., (1945) KB 336; See DOABIA & DOABIA, THE LAW OF SERVICES AND DISMISSALS, 2 (Lexis
Nexis, 2015).
-1-
It is well-settled that an order of suspension has serious consequences on the career of an

employee and additionally affects his family too, it is imperative on the part of the employer that
he should, before ordering suspension, form an opinion on the existence of certain state of
affairs. There must be application of mind on the part of the employer, who must ensure that the
established principles of natural justice are adhered to.7 The Supreme Court has pointed out that
having regard to serious repercussions on livelihood, an order of suspension is not to be passed
lightly and where there was question of inflicting any departmental punishment, an order of
suspension would prima facie tantamount to imposition of a penalty which is manifestly
repugnant to the principles of natural justice and fair play in action.8
1.2 OBJECT OF SUSPENSION
The object of placing an employee under suspension is to keep him away from a position where
he can interfere with the conduct of enquiry or may tamper with documentary or oral evidence in
any manner and to ensure smooth disposal of the proceedings initiated against him.9 The
employee is suspended, where having regard to the nature of charges against him, it is felt that it
would be unsafe to continue to vest in him the powers of his post.
Suspension during departmental proceedings initiated due to criminal proceedings for the same
depends upon:
(a) Stage of criminal proceedings,
(b) Nature or gravity of offence,
(c) Nature of evidence,
(d) Findings of Trial Court and the Appellate Court.
There can be no hard and fast rule in this regard.10 The power to appoint, includes the power to
suspend.11 Suspension pending departmental inquiry is a safeguard against the Government
serving interfering with and hampering the preliminary investigation and tampering with
material evidence – oral and documentary. In case of involvement in criminal proceedings, such
charges usually involve moral turpitude. It would not be proper to allow the person concerned to
7
Dilip Kumar Sarkar v. University of North Bengal, 2011 (3) SLR 451 (Cal.).
8
O.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2257.
9
K.C. Azad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1991 (3) SLR 326.
10
Gurpal Singh v. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan, (2012) 13 SCC 94, (2012) 11 SCALE 390.
11
Pradyat Kumar Bose v. Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, (1955) 2 SCR 1331, AIR 1956 SC 285.
-2-
work as a public servant, unless there are exceptional reasons for not resorting to suspension.
Suspension is also ordered as a deterrent to exhibit the firm determination of the Government to
root out corruption or other grave misconduct. Incidentally, suspension provides the Government
servant with enough time to prepare himself adequately for the enquiry and to clear himself of
the charges leveled against him. Suspension is an administrative and not a quasi-judicial12 action.
The principles of natural justice, therefore, are not applicable to an order of suspension.13
Normally, the order placing him under suspension would itself contain a mention about
disciplinary proceedings against him pending or a case against him in respect of criminal offence
under investigation, inquiry or trial. Where, however, suspension is on the ground of
‗contemplated‘ disciplinary proceedings, the reasons for suspension should be communicated to
the Government servant immediately on the expiry of the time-limit prescribed for the issue of a
charge-sheet, viz., three months from the date of suspension, so that he may be in a position to
effectively exercise the right of appeal available to him. The time limit of forty-five days for
submission of appeal in such cases will count from the date on which the reasons for suspension
are communicated.
SUSPENSION AND ITS CLASSIFICATION
Employer has got implied right to suspend employees in the sense of forbidding them to work.14
The power to suspend a Government servant is an inherent power of the State. Even if there is no
statutory rule which empowers the Government to suspend the officers from performing his
duties, the Government can in the exercise of the inherent power pass an order of suspension.
12
MUTHUSWAMY AND BRINDA, MANUAL ON DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SERVANTS,
178 (Swami Publishers (P) Ltd., 6th Edn., 1996).
13
C.D. Kale v. Nagpur Improvement Trust, 1997 (3) SLR (By.) 261.
14
Hotel Imperial, New Delhi v. Hotel Workers‘ Union, AIR 1959 SC 1342; T. Cajee v. Jormanik Siem (U), AIR
1961 SC 276; Gurdeva Narayan Srivastava v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 Pat 131; Seoti Prasad v. Raghubir Datt
(Dr.), AIR 1960 All 273; B.R. Patel v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 800; K.K. Jaggia v. State, AIR 1968
Punj 97; Agnihotram Ananthacharayalu v. Executive Officer, AIR 1958 AP 325; G.N. Srivstava v. State of Bihar,
AIR 1955 Pat 131; Gopalkrishna Naidu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 Nag 170; Narsingha Murari
Chakravarty v. District Magistrate, AIR 1961 Cal 225; Praduat Kumar Bose v. Chief Justice, Calcutta High Court,
AIR 1956 SC 285; R.P. Kapur v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 787, (1966) 2 LLJ 164; R.P. Kapur v. Union of
India, AIR 1963 Punj 87; Pratap Singh (Dr.) v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 Punj 298; Khem Chand v. Union of
India, AIR 1963 SC 687; Sub Divisional Officer v. Shambhoo Naraisingh,(1969) 1 SCC 825, AIR 1970 SC 140;
V.P. Gindronia v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1970 SC 1497; Parmabhai v. Shivanand Jha, (1992) 2 SLR 98.
-3-
Suspension and its Classification
There is, however some distinction between suspending the contract of service of an officer and
suspending the officer from performing the duties of his office. The suspension of the latter type
is always an implied term of contract.15 There may be cases when suspension order may not be
sustained.16 The power to suspend is the inherent right of the Government.17
2.1 GENERAL
The law recognizes three kinds of suspension viz.:

(a) Suspension as a mode of punishment.
(b) Suspension during or in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings or an enquiry.
(c) Suspension in the sense that the employee may merely be forbidden from discharging his
duties during the pendency of an enquiry against him.18
Suspension includes interim suspension that is, suspension of a public servant pending
departmental enquiry or criminal proceedings and suspension as a penalty.19
The meaning and implications of these three kinds of suspension were explained by a Five Judge
Bench of the Supreme Court in V.P. Gindroniya v. State of M.P.20, Hegde, J. enunciated the law
as follows:
―Three kinds of suspension are known to law. A public servant may be suspended
as a mode of punishment or he may be suspended during the pendency of an
enquiry against him if the order appointing him or statutory provisions governing
his service provide for such suspensions. Lastly he may merely be forbidden from
discharging his duties during the pendency of an enquiry against him which act is
also called suspension. The rights to suspend as a measure of punishment as well
as the right to suspend the contract of service during the pendency of an enquiry
are both regulated by the contract of employment or the provisions regulating the
conditions of service. But the last category of suspension referred to earlier is the
15
Narayana Prasad v. State of Orissa, AIR 1957 Ori 51.
16
See also S.V.G. Iyengar v. State of Mysore, AIR 1961 Mys 37; Subramanian v. State of Kerala, (1973) SLR 521;
State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Chandra, (1976) Lab IC 385; Tushar Kanti Das v. State of West Bengal, (1984) Lab
IC 1112.
17
Pratap Singh v. State, AIR 1963 Punj 298.
18
See S PAL, SERVICE LAW RELATING TO GOVT. AND PUBLIC UNDERTAKINGS (PART 5, 2011, Disciplinary Control,
Chapter 26, Suspension).
19
Gur Bux Rai v. Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika, AIR 1966 All 552.
20
AIR 1970 SC 1494; (1970) 1 SCC 362.
-4-
right of the master to forbid his servant from doing the work which he had to do
under the terms of the contract of service or the provisions governing his
conditions of service at the same time keeping in force the master's obligations
under the contract. In other words the master may ask his servant to refrain from
rendering his service but he must fulfill his part of the contract.‖
The punishment of suspension can only be imposed for proved misconduct.21 Where suspension
is ordered as a punishment for misconduct, it is obvious that the principles of natural justice will
have to be followed and the service rules also provide to the same effect. The Supreme Court has
held that suspension does not amount to reduction in rank.22 A mere irregularity in the passing of
suspension order will not render the subsequent proceedings as invalid.23
Every employer has inherent right to suspend his employees. The power to suspend is a
discretionary power. However, it should be exercised after due application of mind. There should
be sufficient material to justify the suspension. The order of suspension should be free from mala
fides or extraneous considerations.24
2.2 INTERIM SUSPENSION
Suspension ordered in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings is known as interim suspension.

It may be ordered pending the disciplinary proceedings.25 A Division Bench of the Supreme
Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India26, said:
‗Suspension, specially pending the formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or

temporary in nature, and must perforce be of short duration. If it is for an indeterminate
period or if its renewal is not based on sound reasoning, contemporaneously available on
the record, this would render it punitive in nature.‘
21
R.P. Kapur v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 787.
22
Mohd. Ghouse v. State of A.P., AIR 1957 SC 246.
23
Bhanu Prasad v. State, AIR 1956 Sau 14.
24
K.C. Azad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1991 (3) SLR 326.
25
R. N. Mishra v. State of West Bengal, 2011 (1) SLR 709.
26
AIR 2015 SC 2389.
-5-
The departmental/disciplinary proceedings, the Court said, ―Invariably commence with

delay, are plagued with procrastination prior and post the drawing up of the memorandum of
charges and eventually culminate after longer delay.‖
Suspension by way of punishment is brought about in exercise of the disciplinary power of the
employer. If the rules confer a power to suspend by way of punishment, such conferment will not
include a power of interim suspension.27 The difference between interim suspension and
suspension as punishment was pointed out by the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. Union of
India28. There the court observed:
―On general principles the Government, like any other employer, would have a
right to suspend a public servant in one of two ways. It may suspend any public
servant pending departmental enquiry or pending criminal proceedings; this may
be called interim suspension. Or the Government may proceed to hold a
departmental enquiry and after his being found guilty order suspension as a
punishment if the rules so permit. This will be suspension as a penalty.‖
2.3 DEEMED OR AUTOMATIC SUSPENSION
When the rules provide for deemed suspension the effect is that even without passing the order
of suspension, the employee would be treated as suspended.29 Where after the punishment is
quashed in judicial review proceedings and the authorities ordered reinstatement stipulating that
the order was being passed without affecting the case and separate order would be passed
regarding imposition of punishment, the fact that the order of reinstatement did not contain the
decisions of the Appointing Authority to hold further enquiry either on the same allegations or
some other additional charges was not material and the employee would not be entitled to full
salary for the relevant period since he would be deemed to be under suspension for that period.30
27
Sub-Divisional Officer v. Shambhoo Narain Singh, AIR 1970 SC 140.
28
AIR 1964 SC 787.
29
Kiran Sharma v. State of Haryana, 1996 (5) SLR 670 (P&H—DB); See also Union of India v. Rajiv Kumar, AIR
2003 SC 2917.
30
State of U.P. v. Ajit Singh, AIR 1999 SC 2863.
-6-
Ordinarily, a specific order is to be issued to place a government servant under

suspension. However, Rules provide that a government servant shall be deemed to be
under suspension in the following cases-
(a) Where he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a

fixed period exceeding 48 hours;
(b) When he is convicted for an offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment
exceeding 48 hours;
(c) When an order of his dismissal/removal, etc. is set aside by a court and the
competent authority decides to hold further inquiry.31
The relationship of master and servant does not come to an end when there is suspension
in a departmental enquiry. It is for this reason that an employee has the right to get subsistence
allowance pending the enquiry. What amount of subsistence allowance is to be given may
depend on the facts of each case depending upon the relevant service rules. But if there are no
rules a civil servant is entitled to get full salary.32 If a Government employee has been arrested on
a criminal charge, then he is deemed to be under suspension for the period during which he is
detained in custody or is undergoing imprisonment.33
Deemed suspension shall come into existence if the government servant is detained in custody
for more than 48 hours even in the absence of any order in writing passed by the competent
authority.34 The logic is that even without passing an order the employee would be treated under
suspension.35 Deemed suspension is bound to follow irrespective of the fact, whether the
detention is connected with the employment or not.36 Release of the employee on bail will not
affect the deemed suspension. An order for lifting the deemed suspension is necessary.37
31
See Rule 10 (4), C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965; Also see Board of Management v. A. Raghupathy Bhat, 1997 (1)
SLR (SC) 713.
32
R.P. Kapur v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 787.
33
Mahabir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2011) 2 SLR 638.
34
Chander Shekhar Saxena v. Director, Education, Lucknow, 1997 (8) SLR (All.) 357.
35
Jagjit Singh v. State of U.P., 1995 (1) SLR (All.) 536.
36
ibid
37
Nepal C. Dey v. Registrar, Coopt. Societies, 1995 (1) SLR (Cal.) 413.
-7-
However, the employee would not be deemed to be under suspension if he is kept in custody for
not more than 48 hours.38
There are three requirements for the application of Rule 10 (4) of the Central Civil Services
(Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
(a) The Government servant is dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired as a measure of

penalty.
(b) The penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement is set aside or declared or
rendered void by a decision of a Court of Law.
(c) The disciplinary authority decides to hold a further inquiry against the Government
servant on the allegations on which the original order of penalty was imposed.39
In Pranalal Manilal Parikh v. State of Gujarat40, the Supreme Court of India pointed out that the
principle will be applicable to orders which were passed by a competent authority but declared
void by a Court on grounds such as violation of the principles of natural justice etc. This was a
case relating to the initiation and completion of a disciplinary enquiry resulting in penalty of
dismissal of a Civil Judge in the Judicial Service of the State by the State Government which the
Court held was clearly in contravention of the control jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 235 of the Constitution of India. This principle of deemed suspension engrafted in Rule
10(4) of the Central Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules would have no
application where the enquiry and the consequential order have no efficacy in law because of
lack of initial authority viz. where the departmental enquiry was initiated and concluded by an
authority which was precluded from doing so under the law.
Deemed suspension would be there when dismissal order is set aside and matters is remitted to
disciplinary authority for fresh consideration. The employee would be deemed to be under
suspension till an appropriate order is passed by the disciplinary authority. The question of
payment of back wages would depend upon the ultimate order that may be passed by the
disciplinary authority.41
38
See A. Palanisamy v. Union of India, 1991 (3) SLR (CAT-Mad.) 288.
39
Union of India v. Rajiv Kumar, AIR 2003 SC 2917.
40
(1995) 2 LLJ 690.
41
Ranjit Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 4 SCC 153.
-8-
2.4 AUTHORITIES COMPETENT TO SUSPEND
It is imperative that before passing an order suspending a government servant, the authority
proposing to make the order should satisfy himself that he is competent to pass the order of
suspension. An order made without jurisdiction is void ab initio and illegal. It has been further
held that the power to suspend is a quasi-judicial power that it cannot be delegated42. Even a
subsequent approval of the order of suspension doesn‘t make the order valid.43
Rule 10 (1) of the C.C.A. (C.C.S.) Rules, 1965 provides that the following are the authorities
competent to place a government servant under suspension-
(a) The Appointing Authority, as defined in Rule 2 (a);

(b) Any Authority to which the Appointing Authority is subordinate;
(c) The Disciplinary Authority, as defined under Rule 2 (g);
(d) Any other Authority empowered in that behalf, by the President of India, by general or
special order.
Under Proviso to Rule 10 (1), if an order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the
―Appointing Authority‖, such authority should report to the Appointing Authority the
circumstances in which the order was made. Supervisory Officers in field offices located outside
the headquarters may, by issue of special orders in the name of the President in pursuance of
Rule 10, be empowered to place officers subordinate to them under suspension, subject to the
condition that they report the facts of each case immediately to next higher authority.
In the case of a Government servant whose services are lent by one department to another or
borrowed from or lent to a State Government or an authority subordinate thereto or to a local or
other authority, the borrowing authority exercising the powers of the appointing authority, can
place him under suspension under Rule 20 (1), simultaneously informing the lending authority of
the circumstances leading to the order as provided under Proviso to Rule 20 (1) and Rule 21 (1).
42
See S.R. Subramanyan v. Indian Bank, 1995 (8) SLR (Karnataka) 351; Ramoo Ramesh v. Andhra Bank, 1992 (3)
SLJ 144.
43
Inayathulla v. Dy. Conservator of Forests, 1982 (2) Kar. L.J. 432.
-9-
Under Rule 10 (5) (c), the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order of
suspension or any authority to which it is subordinate, can revoke the order.
In Kailash Bholanath Dhengre v. Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, the real authority to suspend
an employee is vested in the management. The Management, by its resolution directed the
initiation of departmental enquiry against the petitioner, and by its letter directed the Headmaster
to place the petitioner under suspension. The Bombay High Court upheld the order of suspension
of the petitioner issued by the Headmaster.
It is the essence of fair and objective administration of law that the authority, vested with
statutory power, should exercise that power unfettered by any extraneous direction or
influence.44 An order of suspension made by the authority higher in hierarchy, which is not
permissible under the Service Rules, would be wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.45
SUSPENSION AND ITS CONSIDERATIONS
The following considerations must be taken into account before making an order for
suspension—
(a) Whether the continuance in service of the government servant is likely to prejudice the
inquiry, trial or investigation;
(b) Whether his continuance in office is likely to seriously subvert discipline in the office;
(c) Whether his continuance in office will be against the wider public interest and if it is
necessary to demonstrate the policy of the Government to deal with officers involved in
public scandals46, particularly corruption.
(d) Whether a preliminary inquiry revealed a prima facie case justifying criminal or
departmental proceedings, which are likely to lead to his conviction and/or dismissal,
removal or compulsory retirement from service; and
44
T.R.G. Nair v. Manager, K.P.S.R.M.H. School, 1998 (6) SLR (Kerala) 434.
45
See Udai Veer Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2011 (8) 796 (All.).
46
These may include embezzlement, misappropriation of government property, possession of disproportionate
assets, misuse of official powers for personal gain.
- 10 -
Suspension and its Considerations
(e) Whether he is suspected to have engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest
and security of the State.
3.1 WHEN SUSPENSION IS RESORTED TO
The employer has inherent right to pass an order of suspension pending an inquiry. It is an
internal power given to the employer. ‗Suspension is not a rule, but an exception‘. When
allegations of serious nature involving indiscipline, moral turpitude, corruption etc. are received
against a Government servant, suspension is resorted to.
As stated under Rule 10 (1), C.C.A (C.C.S.) Rules, 1965, a government servant can be placed
under suspension only by a specific order made in writing by the competent authority. He should
not be placed under suspension by an oral order. Rule 10 (1), C.C.A (C.C.S.) Rules, 1965: A
government servant may be placed under suspension in the following circumstances-
(a) When disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated or is pending; or

(b) When a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry
or trial47; or when a criminal prosecution is pending against him; or
(c) When he is under detention48; or
(d) When he is engaged in any activity prejudicial to the security of the State49; or
(e) When following a preliminary enquiry, the competent authority is satisfied that a prima
facie case has been made out for departmental proceedings. However, framing of definite
charges or communication thereof to the concerned employee or the issue of the charge-
sheet, is not a condition precedent.
In Kalipada Ghosh v. State of West Bengal,50 the question before the Calcutta High Court was,
whether an employee, entangled in a criminal case, arrested and detained in custody but enlarged
on bail, could be continued to be on suspension. The Court held that where disciplinary
proceedings had already been started, the employee released on bail, could not claim that his
suspension be revoked. Thus, even on release of an employee from custody, the employee could
be suspended or that when already under suspension, could be continued under suspension.
47
See Punjab National Bank v. Jagdish Singh, AIR 1999 SC 1577.
48
Union of India v. S.K. Sarkar, AIR 2001 SC 1092.
49
ibid
50
2011 (8) 76 (Cal.).
- 11 -
The expression ―pending such inquiry‖ in the Service Rules or any binding Award, has been
interpreted to mean ―where the disciplinary action is proposed or contemplated‖. It thus, clarifies
that an employee can be suspended and there is no need for issue of any charge-sheet.
Certain types of misdemeanor where suspension may be desirable in the circumstances

mentioned above are indicated below:
 An offence or conduct involving moral turpitude;

 Corruption, embezzlement or misappropriation of Government money, possession of
disproportionate assets, misuse of official powers for personal gain;
 Serious negligence and dereliction of duty resulting in considerable loss to Government;
 Desertion of duty; and
 Refusal or deliberate failure to carry out written orders of superior officers.
In Mangali v. Chhakki Lal51 case, the tests to find out moral turpitude were given:
(a) Whether the act is such as would shock the moral conscience of society;
(b) Whether the motive which led to the act was a base one; and
(c) Whether on account of the act having been committed, the perpetrator could be
considered to be of depraved character or a person who was to be looked down by
society.
In Bank of Maharashtra v. Om Prakash Malviya52, the Delhi High Court stated that the
dictionary meaning of the word ‗moral‘ stands for ‗right and wrong conduct, virtue, moral
lessons or principles‘ and ‗turpitude‘ stands for ‗wickendness‘.
In State of U.P. v. Jai Singh Dixit53, the Court observed that ‗to complate‘ means ‗to have a
view‘, ‗to take into account as contingency‘. Therefore whenever it is in the mind of the
appropriate authority that in due course, a formal departmental inquiry shall be held or there
exists a contingency for such an inquiry, one can say that a formal inquiry is contemplated. It is,
however, necessary that there should be an application of mind, in good faith, and not arbitrarily.
51
AIR 1963 All 527.
52
1997 Lab. IC 1932.
53
(1976) LLJ All. 246.
- 12 -
Precautions may be taken by the Government when delinquent is not put under suspension. The
Government is free:
(i) to transfer the concerned person to any Department in any of its offices within or outside
the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may
misuse for obstructing the investigation against him.
(ii) may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till
the stage of his having to prepare his defence.
This will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the
right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution.54
In Hari Dev Pillai v. Union of India, it was held that where the fact is self-evident, suspension
may be ordered without a formal fact finding inquiry.
3.2 SUSPENSION WHEN EFFECTIVE
An order of suspension is effective as soon as it is issued or dispatched.
In State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram55, Supreme Court held that an order of suspension takes effect
from the date of communication and not from the date of receipt. It further explained that
although the ordinary meaning of the word ―communicate‖ is to impart, confer or transmit
information, that could not be interpreted to mean that the order would become effective only on
its receipt by the concerned servant unless the rules in question expressly so provide. Although
actual knowledge of an order may be necessary for effective communication in certain cases (e.g.
dismissal because of its consequences), such is not the case in the case of effectiveness of an
order of suspension in respect of an officer who has proceeded on leave. In such cases once the
order is sent out or issued communication is complete.
3.3 SUSPENSION PENDING ENQUIRY
Sometimes the rules may provide that an employee may be placed under suspension pending an
enquiry. In Dulal Krishna Kanjilal v. State of West Bengal56, relying on Managing Director,
54
Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, 2015 (2) SCALE 432.
55
AIR 1970 SC 214.
56
1988 (2) SLR 807.
- 13 -
U.P. Warehousing Corporation v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee57, it was contended that the
expression ―pending enquiry‖ in the Police Regulation, Bengal must mean a regular
departmental enquiry and not any probing or informal enquiry prior thereto. Rejecting the
contention, G.N. RAY, J. speaking, for the Division Bench pointed out that the enquiry
contemplated in the Police Regulation should be understood in a broader sense including probing
enquiry and it would not be proper to limit it to the initiation of a departmental proceedings
based on a formal charge-sheet.
When an appointing authority seeks to suspend an employee pending inquiry or contemplated

inquiry or pending investigation into graves charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or
serious acts or omission and commission, the order of suspension should be passed after taking
into consideration.
(i) The gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated.

(ii) The nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of the
mind by disciplinary authority.
(iii)Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide
whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending suspension.
(iv) It should not be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee.
It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the
allegations imputed to the delinquent employee.
(v) The Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law
could be laid down in that behalf.
(vi) Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to
discharge the duties of office or post held by him.
(vii) An order of suspension is passed to refrain an employee to avail further opportunity to
perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of the
service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get away
even pending inquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent
officer to scuttle the inquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent
57
AIR 1980 SC 840.
- 14 -
having had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry
etc.
(viii) Each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the
situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the
delinquent employee in service pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or investigation.
(ix) Action should not be actuated by mala fides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose.
(x) The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry.
(xi) The appointing authority should keep in mind the impact of the employee‘s continuance in
office while facing departmental enquiry or criminal trial.58
Order of suspension can be passed when an enquiry or trial is actually pending.59 There should
be initiation of disciplinary proceedings before an order of suspension is passed. Formal order
initiating the proceeding is however, not necessary. 60 If the decision can be seen from either the
files or some other records or even from orders suspending the officer pending enquiry that
would be sufficient. Merely because the order initiating proceedings is embodied in the same
order by which the civil servant is suspended that would make the order valid.61
There is no absolute rule that the authority cannot pass a suspension order for the second time.
For example, if the first order is withdrawn by the authority on the ground that at that stage the
evidence appearing against the delinquent employee is not sufficient or for some other reason
which is not connected with the merits of the case then a second order of suspension will not be
unjustified.62
In Ghouse Mohammad v. State of Andhra,63 it was said that suspension pending inquiry is:
(a) An administrative act and not a quasi-judicial order.

(b) It is not necessary to make any inquiry into the charges of misconduct or to obtain the
explanation of the Government servant before making such order.
(c) It can be made if the authority concerned on getting a complaint,
58
State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, (1994) 4 SCC 126.
59
B.B. Mondal v. State of West Bengal, (1973) 1 SLR 1017.
60
Raman Kutty v. State, (1973) 1 SLR 408. This view was expressed by the Supreme Court in P.R. Naik v. Union
of India, (1972) SLR 219.
61
Raman Kutty v. State of Kerala, (1973) 1 SLR 408.
62
U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, v. Sanjiv Rajan, 1993 (4) SLR 543.
63
Ghouse Mohammad v. State of Andhra, AIR 1957 SC 246.
- 15 -
(i) considers that the alleged charge does not appear to be groundless;
(ii) that it requires enquiry; and
(iii) that it is necessary to suspend the servant pending the enquiry.
(d) Where the power to suspend is subject to statutory conditions or limitations, the order will be
ultra vires; if the conditions are violated.64
Power to suspend exists when departmental enquiry is contemplated.65 Government servant need
not be suspended pending a departmental enquiry and when he is not so suspended there is
nothing to prevent him from seeking the benefits attached to the service including promotion.66
Fundamental Rule 53 contemplates all kinds of suspension whether it is a penalty or it is as an

interim measure pending departmental enquiry or criminal proceeding. Rule 151 and 152 of the
Bombay Civil Service are couched in a language similar to Fundamental Rules 53 and 54.
Consequently suspension during the pendency of a departmental enquiry is valid.67
The Court explained the scope of the expression ‗pending enquiry‘ occurring in para 19.12 (a)
and (b) of Chapter XIX of the bipartite settlement between Indian Banks Association and All
India Banks Employees Association68. In this case the employee was called upon to show cause
as to why disciplinary action be not taken against him and by an order of the same date, the
employee was placed under suspension. The suspension order was questioned on the ground that
no enquiry was pending against the employee when the suspension order was issued. It was held
that the expression ‗enquiry‘ in this context refers to the enquiry initiated according to the
procedure under para 19.12(a) for taking disciplinary action against an employee. Only after the
said procedure is started it can be said that the enquiry is pending against the employee. In that
event, he may be also suspended. Suspension under para 19.12(b) is an interim one and not by
way of punishment. At the same time, power of suspension under the said provision may be
64
Tarak Nath Ghosh v. Government of India, AIR 1967 Pat 81.
65
Ram Gopal Nigam v. State, (1968) Lab IC 1476; Tarak Nath Ghose v. Government of India, AIR 1967 Pat
81; Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs v. Tarak Nath Ghose, AIR 1971 SC 823; Mritunjai Singh v.
State of Uttar Pradesh, (1971) SLR 523; P.S. Dudiala v. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, (1975) Lab
IC 1617; Tek Chand Jain v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1975) 2 SLR 233; Hirendra Nath Bakshi v. Life
Insurance Corporation of India, AIR 1976 Cal 88.
66
D.S. Iyar v. I.G. of Police, (1971) Lab IC 937.
67
B.M. Patal v. State, AIR 1968 SC 800.
68
Gopi Nath Kund v. Bank of India, (1980) 1 CHN 176.
- 16 -
invoked only when an enquiry is pending and not merely contemplated. Such enquiry is clearly
referable to the enquiry according to the procedure specified in paragraph 19.12(a).
3.4 WHEN SUSPENSION SHOULD NOT BE RESORTED TO
While public interest is to be the guiding principle in deciding to place the government servant
under suspension, the competent authority must take in to consideration all facts and
circumstances of the case. The power to suspend, therefore, should be used sparingly and with
due care and only when it is absolutely essential. An order of suspension should not be made in a
perfunctory or in a routine or in a casual manner. It must not be made in petty offences unrelated
to morality or the official duties of the government servant.69
The suspended person suffers the ignominy of insinuations, the scorn of society and the derision
of his Department. He has to endure this excruciation even before he is formally charged with
some misdemeanor, indiscretion or offence. His torment is his knowledge that if and when
charged, it will inexorably take an inordinate time for the inquisition or inquiry to come to its
culmination, that is to determine his innocence or iniquity.70
The competent authority should consider, whether the purpose cannot be served by transferring
the official from his post71 or by granting him leave due to him.
3.5 APPLICATION OF MIND AND SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR SUSPENSION
It has been emphasized that an order of interim suspension can only be made after the authority
comes to the conclusion that there are sufficient reasons for keeping him under suspension72 i.e.
in other words, there has to a proper application of mind and satisfaction that suspension is called
for in a given case. There must be reflection, in the order of suspension, that the issuing authority
had applied his independent mind and formed opinion that the matter was of urgent or an
emergent nature.
69
K. C. Azad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1991 (3) SLR 326.
70
Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, 2015 (2) SCALE 432.
71
Keshari Prasad v. Union of India, 1996 (1) SLR (All.) 217.
72
G. Prahlad v. State of Karnataka, 1980 (2) SLR 461 (Kant).
- 17 -
In Dilip Kumar Sarkar v. University of North Bengal73, the petitioner as Controller of

Examination, N.B. University, alleged to have irregularly spent money thereby causing a huge
loss to the University Fund which involved criminal breach of trust as a public servant, was
suspended by order of the Vice Chancellor in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding to be
instituted against him. The order was challenged by the petitioner mainly on the ground of non-
application of mind and non-disclosure of reasons. It was also contended that there was no urgent
or emergent situation which warranted passing of the order of suspension. Stating that ‗formation
of opinion‘ is a mental process, the Calcutta High Court said:
If a statute requires formation of opinion by certain authority before taking any

step, then the authority concerned has to undertake the requisite degree of mental
exercise before taking a decision and the fact that such exercise has been
undertaken has to be disclosed in the order itself, as the issue as to whether certain
state of affairs warranted exercise of emergency power is a justiciable issue.
Since, there was no application of mind and there were non-disclosure of reasons on the part of
the Vice-Chancellor issuing order of suspension of the petitioner, it was held to be non-
sustainable in law and hence quashed by the court. The Court added that, ‗since the order itself
was found to be invalid, the question of further examination and approval by the council could
not arise.
The absence of a recital in the order of suspension regarding the requisite satisfaction will not
invalidate the order.74 After pointing that suspension is an unqualified right of the employer, the
Supreme Court has observed that the right cannot be exercised for trivial lapse nor should the
authorities concerned be afflicted by ‗suspension syndrome‘ and place employees under
suspension just for nothing.75
3.6 EFFECTS OF PROLONGED SUSPENSION
An order of suspension of an employee does not put an end to his service under the Government.
During suspension, the relationship of master and servant doesn‘t cease and, therefore, the
73
Dilip Kumar Sarkar v. University of North Bengal, 2011 (3) SLR 451.
74
State of Haryana v. Hari Ram Yadav, (1994) 2 SCC 617; AIR 1994 SC 1262.
75
Capt. M. Paulanthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited, (1999) 3 SCC 679.
- 18 -
government servant concerned does not cease to be member of the service. For instance, a
suspended police officer doesn‘t cease to be a police officer and, therefore, he continues subject
to the same responsibilities, discipline and penalties as if he were not suspended.
Suspension is of a temporary duration. When the suspended officer is allowed to resume work
the suspension comes to an end. The Government servant whose suspension comes to an end
may be suspended again but it is not possible to say that the suspension will revive on the
happening of some event. Where an order of suspension was passed without framing any charges
and when it was challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the High Court
stayed the operation of the order, it was held that the result of this was that the employee stood
reinstated. However, again a fresh order of suspension can be passed in accordance with law. The
employee, who resumes his work under an interim order of High Court, becomes liable to
suspension the moment he joins the service.76
The effect of "suspension" has been considered by the Supreme Court of India in Hotel Imperial,
New Delhi v. Hotel Workers Union77. In that case following the decisions in Hanley v. Pease and
Partners Ltd.78, Secy. of State v. Surendra Nath79, and Rupa Ram v. Divisional Superintendent
N.W. Rly. Lahore80, the Supreme Court of India held that where there is power to suspend either
in the contract of employment or in the statute or the rules framed thereunder the suspension has
the effect of temporarily suspending the relation of master and servant with the consequence that
the servant is not to get pay or render service and the master is not bound to pay. Thus,
suspension is not putting an end to the relationship of master and servant relegating parties to the
original position they were in before the relationship of employer and employee came into
existence. That relationship is suspended temporarily only, during the period of suspension.
Whenever a Government servant is suspended from the office he holds, it is merely a direction
that so long as he holds the office and until he is legally dismissed or removed he must not do
anything in the discharge of the duties of his office.81
76
K.K. Ramanutty v. State of Kerala, (1972) 2 LLJ 509; T.L. Anantharaman v. Union of India, (1979) 1 LLJ 438.
77
Imperial Hotel, New Delhi v. Hotel Worker‘s Union, (1959) SC 1342 at p. 1345.
78
(1915) 1 KB 66.
79
AIR 1938 Cal 759.
80
AIR 1954 Punj 298.
81
V.P. Gidroniya v. State, AIR 1967 MP 231.
- 19 -
Stating that protracted periods of suspension, repealed renewal thereof, have regrettably
become the norm and not the exception that ought to be, the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar
Choudhary v. Union of India82, observed:
The suspended person suffering the ignominy of insinuations, the scorn of the society and
the derision of his Department, has to endure this excruciation even before he is formally
charged with some misdemeanor, indiscretion or offence. His torment is his knowledge that if
and when he is charged, it will inexorably take an inordinate time for the inquisition or inquiry to
come to its culmination, that is to determine his innocence or iniquity. Much too often this has
now become an accompaniment to retirement. It seems to us that if Parliament considered it
necessary that a person be released from incarceration after the expiry of 90 days even though
accused of commission of the most heinous crimes, a fortiori suspension should not be continued
after the expiry of a similar period especially when the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet has
not been served on the suspended person.
So said, the Court directed that the currency of the suspension order should not extend beyond
three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet wasn‘t served on the
delinquent officer/employ. ―If the MOC is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the
extension of the suspension‖, the Court said:
Stating that ―suspension of an employee is injurious to his interests‖, the Supreme Court
in O.P. Gupta v. Union of India83, said that suspension must not be continued for an
unreasonably long period and that an order of suspension should not be lightly passed.
Unexplained delay in the conclusion of proceedings would raise assumption of prejudice 84.
Again, selective suspension perpetuated indefinitely in circumstances where other involved
persons, who had been privy to the omission/guilt, had not been proceeded against
departmentally, would castigate the suspension.85
82
AIR 2015 SC 2389.
83
AIR 1987 SC 2257.
84
State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan, AIR 1988 SC 1833.
85
K. Sukhendar Reddy v. State of A.P., (1999) 6 SCC 257.
- 20 -
Suspension is to be distinguished from ‗lay-off‘. While in case of the former, the relationship of
the master and servant subsists, in case of the latter, the employee is no longer the servant of the
employer, though he may be reinstated in service under the Service Rules.86
Time passed by the Government servant under suspension pending inquiry, will count as
qualifying service where-
(a) On the conclusion of such inquiry, he has been fully exonerated; or

(b) The suspension is held to be wholly unjustified; or
(c) Where the order of suspension is withdrawn.
In other cases, the competent authority should at the appropriate time, declare whether and to
what extent, the period of suspension, will count as qualifying service. In case he is reinstated
without forfeiture of service, the emoluments which he would have drawn had he not been
suspended shall be the emoluments for the purpose of pension.87
Even though the employee is acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt, he is entitled to full
pay during the period of suspension.88 On being reinstated he will be entitled to all the
consequential benefits, such as, arrears of salary for the suspension period, annual grade
increments. The principle of ―No work, no pay‖ will not be applicable in such cases.89
3.7 DURATION AND REVOCATION OF SUSPENSION
The duration of a suspension order will depend upon the terms of the order or the provisions of
the rules. On general principles, an order of interim suspension will end with a final order made
in the enquiry proceedings or the conclusion of the investigation or enquiry or trial in relation to
the criminal offence pending which the order of suspension had been made. There is no fixed
time for which a civil servant can be kept under suspension. Suspension, by its very nature, is of
a short duration and the concerned servant is allowed to resume the work. Rather, he would be
deemed to be in duty, on the expiration of the suspension period. But when the official is
86
Regional Director, E.S.I.C v. M/s. Popular Automobiles Ltd., 1997 (5) SLR (S.C.) 628.
87
See Rule 33 of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972.
88
Puran Dass v. Union of India, 1998 (3) SLR (H.P.) 524.
89
Sudarshan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1995 (2) SLR (P. & H.) 793.
- 21 -
suspended, till further order, or where no definite period is prescribed in the suspension order, the
suspension is not automatically terminated and continues till withdrawn by a subsequent order.90
When the disciplinary proceedings are not concluded within the time fixed by the Court as also
within the time extended by the Court, the disciplinary proceedings are said to have an unnatural
death after the expiry of the extended/time limit and the employee must be permitted to join the
post with right to get full salary for the period of suspension.91
3.7.1 Duration of Suspension
This is also supported by the reasoning underlying the decision of the Supreme Court in Om
Prokash Gupta v. State of U.P.,92 where it was observed that the order of suspension could only
come to an end with an order replacing it. For example, if as a result of the enquiry an order of
dismissal by way of penalty had been passed, the order of suspension lapsed with the passing of
the order of dismissal. This principle was subsequently reiterated and explained by BHAGWATI,
J.:
"Now, when the order of dismissal is passed, the vinculum juris between the Government
and the servant is dissolved: the relationship of master and servant between them is
extinguished. Then the order of suspension must a fortiori come to an end."93
In the case of Union of India and Others v. Dipak Mali, the Supreme Court agreed with the
views expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, as confirmed by the High Court and
stated that:
‗Having regard to the amended provisions of sub-rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10, the review
for modification or revocation of the order of suspension was required to be done before the
expiry of 90 days from the date of order of suspension and as categorically provided under sub-
rule (7), the order of suspension made or deemed would not be valid after a period of 90 days
unless it was extended after review for a further period of 90 days.‘94
90
See State of Punjab v. Mewa Singh, 1982 (2) SLR (P. & H.) 611.
91
See Smt. Kabita Sit v. The W.B. Board of Secondary Education, 2011 (4) SLR 329 (Cal.).
92
AIR 1955 SC 600; (1955) 2 SCR 391.
93
H.L. Mehra v. Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 1281 at 1287.
94
Union of India and Others v. Dipak Mali – (2010) 5 MLJ 1132. (In The Supreme Court Of India, Altamas Kabir
and Markandey Katju, JJ., S.L.P. (C) No. 6661 of 2006, 15th December, 2009).
- 22 -
Service rules might vest the authority with power to extend the suspension period. Such an order
for extension of suspension is to be passed before the expiration of the period of suspension fixed
vide the earlier order.95 A civil servant cannot be placed in the state of uncertainty and suspension
wouldn‘t be continued beyond the minimum period for which it is essentially required.
Prolonging the continuance of suspension when inquiry is unduly delayed would smack
of mala fide. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India96, the Apex Court took a serious view of the
prolonged suspension and observed that the rules of natural justice would have to be followed
even in the case of suspension. In this case, the government servant was kept under suspension
for 11 years and the departmental proceedings were continued for a period of 20 years. It was
held to be arbitrary, bad, void and against the principles of natural justice. However, where the
nature of offences committed required considerable time for completing the investigation,
continuance of suspension for a prolonged period would be justified.97
For instance in Balbir Chand Josan v. Chandigarh Administration,98 the petitioner joined
as the Principal of the DAV College, sector 10, Chandigarh on 2.4.2008, was transferred on
19.5.2010 which was challenged by him on various grounds before the Punjab and Haryana High
Court. The Court while issuing notice of motion, stayed the operation of the transfer order, on
19.5.2010, which order continued to operate. During the pendency of the writ petition, the
Governing body by order dated 15.9.2010, placed him under suspension, in contemplation of the
disciplinary proceedings to be taken against him. He moved the Registrar, Panjab University for
stay of the order of suspension on the ground that he was not sent the charge-sheet along with the
order of suspension, under Regulation 9.2 of Chapter VIII (E) of the Panjab University Calendar
Vol. I (2007). The Registrar stayed his suspension order on 16.9.2010. But, on 17.9.2010, the
Registrar by order kept the order dated 16.9.2010 in abeyance.
The High Court held that the Registrar couldn‘t have taken action on the application
dated 16.9.2010, under Regulation 9.2 staying the order of suspension, and must have waited for
a week for the G.B. to send the order of suspension along the charge-sheet to him. The charge-
sheet was issued to the petitioner on 18.9.2010. The Hon‘ble High Court directed that the
95
See K. Unnikumarann v. Dir. General, Ordnance Factory, 1994 (6) SLR (CAT-Mad.) 464.
96
AIR 1987 SC 2257.
97
B. Srinivasulu v. Secretary, State Legislature, 1994 (8) SLR (A.P.) 359.
98
2011 (4) SLR 734 (P. & H.).
- 23 -
consequential disciplinary proceedings were pending, which need to be finalized at the earliest so
that the mind of uncertainty could be cleared. It was, thus, ruled that suspension order must be
followed by charge-sheet, simultaneously, except where action could not brook any delay and
required immediate reaction from the employer.
In the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India & Anr.,99 the government employee was
placed under suspension which was extended from time to time without departmental
proceedings being initiated against him by serving a charge-sheet. The suspension order had
been passed in contemplation of the departmental proceedings. In the said context and factual
background, the Supreme Court had made adverse observations and quashed the suspension
order.100
In Shri S.K. Srivastava v. Union of India & Others101, it had been held that suspension made
under Rule 10(1) has to be reviewed by the Competent Authority before expiry of 90 days from
date of order of suspension. If no order reviewing the suspension and extending in the period
before the expiry of 90 days from the date of order suspension, the suspension will lapse.
―Strictly speaking there is nothing to interpret in Rule 10 because it is free from

any ambiguity and is very clear. A total reading of Rule 10 would clearly reveal
that suspension made under Rule 10(1) has to be reviewed by the Competent
Authority before expiry of 90 days from the date of order of suspension. The
Competent Authority, on the recommendations of the Review Committee, may
extend the period of suspension up to 180 days at a time. The second, third, fourth
etc. reviews shall be made before the extended period of suspension expires. If the
extended period of suspension is for 180 days, the review could be made up to
179 the day and so on and so forth. The purport of the rule is that the Competent
Authority has to review the order of suspension under Rule 10(1) within 90 days
of the original order of suspension, after which the suspension will become
invalid beyond the period of 90 days. Second, the Competent Authority could
review the order of suspension before the period of 90 days from the date of
99
(2015) 7 SCC 291.
100
See 2016 VAD (Delhi) 98; (HC delhi).
101
2009 (3) AISLJ (CAT) 387; See Dr. Hari Prasad v. Union of India and Others, LNINDORD 2013 CATND 851.
- 24 -
original suspension also. On the first review after the original order of suspension,
the suspension could be extended on the recommendation of the Review
Committee for a period up to 180 days at as time. The period of suspension has to
be reviewed again on the recommendation of the Review Committee before the
expiry of the extended period of suspension which need not be 90 days. If the
suspension is extended for say 60 days, the review would have to be done before
the expiry of 60 days.‖
Continued suspension for a number of years, there being no justification for it, not only causes
injury to the employee concerned but also to the public interest.102 However, if plausible reasons
exist and the authorities feel that the suspension needs to be continued, merely because it is for a
long period, that doesn‘t invalidate the suspension.103
A suspension order is held bad, if it is not followed by a charge-sheet within a reasonable time. It
is therefore, unjust on the part of the authority to order suspension and then not to take any
further action. Further, except when the rules provide otherwise, no order of suspension can be
passed until and unless actually the disciplinary proceedings are commenced. 104 Where no
contemplated inquiry is initiated, no charge-sheet issued and no material to show on what
grounds such proceedings were contemplated, the order of suspension is held not sustainable as
it is made without application of mind.105
3.7.2 Revocation of Suspension
The disciplinary authority should review periodically the case of a government servant under
suspension in which a charge-sheet has been served. The authority is to see what steps to be
taken to expedite the progress of the court-trial or the departmental proceedings, as the case may
be. It may revoke the order of suspension, permitting the government servant to resume duty,
102
See Ravi Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1997 (1) SLR (P. & H.) 776.
103
Union of India v. Rajiv Kumar, AIR 2003 SC 2918.
104
P.R. Nayak v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 554.
105
D.K. Puri v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi, 1998 (2) SLR (Delhi) 134; A.P. Jai Narain Rai v. S.S.P. Allahabad,
1998 (6) SLR (All.) 790.
- 25 -
when in its view the continuance of suspension is not justified, having regard to the
circumstances of the case, at any particular stage.106
It is in the inherent powers of the disciplinary authority and also mandatory to review
periodically the case of the Government servant under suspension in which charge-sheet has
been served/files to see what steps could be taken to expedite the progress of the court
trial/departmental proceedings and revoke the order permitting the Government servant to
resume duty. The first review has been prescribed to be undertaken at the end of three months
from the date of suspension. In appropriate cases, if the investigation is likely to take more time,
it should be considered whether the suspension order should be revoked and the officer permitted
to resume duty. If the presence of the officer is considered detrimental to the collection of
evidence, etc., or if he is likely to tamper with the evidence, he may be transferred on revocation
of the suspension order.
An order revoking suspension or deemed suspension, may be made, at any time in the following
circumstances107-
(a) Departmental Proceedings-

(i) If it is decided that no formal proceedings need to be taken with a view to impose a
major penalty;
(ii) Where the final order passed is other than dismissal, removal or compulsory
retirement;
(iii)Where the Government servant is exonerated of the charges against him;
(iv) If in appeal or revision, the order is modified into an order other than major penalties;
(b) Criminal Offence-
(i) If in cases of arrest and detention, it is decided not to proceed further against the
employee by filing a charge-sheet in the court;
(ii) If an appeal/revision against acquittal of the delinquent, fails in higher court;
(iii)If the delinquent is ultimately acquitted in the courts and it is decided not to take any
departmental proceedings against him.
106
D.K. Puri v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi, 1998 (2) SLR (Delhi) 134.
107
See Rule 10(5)(c), C.C.A (C.C.S.) Rules, 1965.
- 26 -
Essentials of Suspension
An order of revocation of suspension will take effect from the date of issue. However, where it is
not practicable to reinstate with immediate effect the order of revocation should be expressed as
taking effect from the date to be specified.
ESSENTIALS OF SUSPENSION
The power to appoint includes the power to suspend. Therefore, where it is not expressly laid
down in the Rules as to which authority can suspend, the appointing authority or a superior
authority, can suspend the government servant.108 In case an employee is on deputation to
another department under the control of the Government, he can be suspended by that
department.109
4.1 RESIGNATION AND RETIREMENT
If a government servant, under suspension submits his resignation from service, the competent
authority should examine, with reference to the merits of the disciplinary case pending against
him, whether it would be in the public interest to accept the same. The resignation may be
accepted-
(a) If the alleged offences do not involve moral turpitude; or

(b) Where the quantum of evidence against him is not strong enough to justify the
assumption that if departmental proceedings were continued, he would be dismissed or
removed from service; or
(c) Where the departmental proceedings are likely to be so protracted that it would be
cheaper to the public exchequer to accept the resignation.
Generally, an order of suspension can be made prior to retirement. Upon retirement an order of
suspension will lapse. Under the Service Rules, it is open to a government servant to retire from
service on his own accord on complying with certain conditions as to age and qualifying service
108
See Section 16 (1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897; Also see K. Laxman v. Dy. Chief Traffic Manager,
A.P.S.R.T.C., 1998 (6) SLR (A.P.) 484.
109
State of Kerala v. Sugatha Kumar, 1998 (7) SLR (Kerala) 111.
- 27 -
period by giving to the appropriate authority, a notice of not less than 3 months, in writing.110
However, in case of a government servant under suspension, the right to retire voluntarily is
always subject to the prior approval of the appropriate authority.111
It is settled that if disciplinary action is sought to be taken against a Government servant it must
be done before he retires, unless there are special rules to the contrary. If a disciplinary enquiry
cannot be concluded before the date of such retirement, and if the rules permit, the course open
to the Government is to pass an order of suspension and refuse to permit the concerned public
servant to retire and retain him in service till such enquiry is completed and a final order is
passed therein.112
If during suspension an employee is permitted to retire without any objection, the order of
suspension must be treated as lapsed since the relationship of master and servant ceases to exist
and consequently the period of suspension is to be counted towards duty and the employee
would be entitled to all consequential benefits of pay and allowances for that period.113 The
reason for the period being counted towards duty is that after the cessation of relationship the
question of conclusion of departmental proceedings does not arise.114
4.2 CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION
Though suspension in itself is not a punishment, as it constitutes a great hardship for a

Government servant, relief is available to him by way of appeal. Rule 23 (i) provides for a
Government servant preferring an appeal against an order of suspension made or deemed to have
been made under Rule 10.
An employee, aggrieved with the order of suspension, has a right to challenge the same before
the Administrative Tribunal where the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 are
applicable or by suits in courts or by writs petitions before the High Court or the Supreme Court.
An order of suspension can be challenged on the following grounds-
110
See Fundamental Rules, Rules 56, 48.
111
See Fundamental Rules, Rules 56, 48.
112
State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram, AIR 1970 SC 214.
113
S.P. Jain v. Punjab National Bank, 1993 (1) SLR 517 (Del).
114
State of Karnataka v. R.S. Naik, 1983 (3) SLR 49 (Kant—DB).
- 28 -
1. Incompetency of the Authority115

2. Arbitrariness116
3. Discrimination117
4. Non-application of mind
Though the employer has a right to place the employee under suspension, but in doing so,
it is the duty of the competent authority to ascertain the facts and circumstances and the
genuineness of the allegations, which are the basis of suspension. An order of suspension,
passed without valid reason, where prima facie application of mind is lacking, may be
held to be bad.118
5. Violation of principles of natural justice
6. Mala fides
7. Order ultra vires the Rules
The right to suspend an employee is regulated by the contract of employment or the
provisions regulating the conditions of service. An order of suspension, made without
complying with the rules cannot be sustained.119
8. No disciplinary proceedings followed
It is not necessary to initiate any sort of inquiry before passing an order of suspension.
But, where no contemplated inquiry is yet initiated, and there being no material to show
on what grounds such proceedings were contemplated, the order of suspension is not
sustainable. Again, abnormal delay in the initiation of inquiry makes the suspension
bad.120
9. Delay in framing of charges
Any considerable delay in framing the charges, whereby the employee is disabled from
outing forth his defence effectively and is also prejudiced by such delay, suspension order
is not sustainable.
10. Prolonged suspension
115
Baljeet Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996 (7) SLR (P. & H.) 248.
116
ibid
117
For instance, where a co-accused, with similar charges having framed against him, is reinstated, the continuance
of suspension of the petitioner is held discriminatory; See Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 (6) SLR
(Raj.) 753; A. P. Jai Narain Rai v. S. S. P., Allahabad, 1998 (6) SLR (All.) 790.
118
Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 (6) SLR (Raj.) 753.
119
See Dhanabendra Roy v. State of West Bengal, 1998 (5) SLR (Cal.) 542.
120
R. C. Saini v. H.U.D.A., Panchkula, 1996 (5) SLR (P. & H.) 15.
- 29 -
Suspension and Subsistence Allowance
It has been held that a government servant cannot be placed in a state of uncertainty and
suspension would not be continued beyond the minimum period for which it is necessary.
The Apex Court has taken a serious note of the prolonged suspension and observed that the
rules of natural justice are to be followed in cases of suspension. The time limit of forty-five
days for submission of appeal in such cases will count from the date on which the reasons for
suspension are communicated.
Under Rule 27 (1), the appellate authority should consider whether in the light of the
provisions of Rule 10 and having regard to the circumstances of the case, the order of
suspension is justified or not and confirm or revoke the order accordingly. Such revoking is
also covered under Rule 10 (5) (c).
SUSPENSION AND SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE
5.1 MEANING
An order of suspension does not put an end to the government service. The relationship of master
servant between the parties subsists and it doesn‘t cease. Suspension merely suspends the claim
of salary by the servant.121 But, the Service Rules provide for the payment of subsistence
allowance to the employee.122 This provision is made to enable the employee to sustain himself
till the finality of his case. It is to ensure non-violation of the right to life of the employee
available under Article 21 of the Constitution.123 It is trite that whenever a disciplinary authority
suspends an employee, it is the bounden duty of the authority to pay suspension allowance and
non-payment of subsistence allowance would be in violation of the fundamental right of the
delinquent employee to live with dignity as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.124
Payment of subsistence allowance is not a bounty, it is a right and it is well settled that no one
can be kept under suspension without payment of subsistence allowance125. If this right is
suspended, employee is unable to appear for want of funds on account of non-payment of
subsistence allowance, it is clear case of breach of principles of natural justice.
121
Ram Lakhan v. Presiding Officer, AIR 2001 SC 286.
122
See Rule 53, C.C.S. (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
123
Ram Lakhan v. Presiding Officer, AIR 2000 SC 1946; M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines, AIR 1999 SC
1461.
124
Khem Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2013 (6) SLR 431 (All.).
125
R. N. Misra v. State of West Bengal, 2011 (1) SLR 709 (Cal.).
- 30 -
In Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P.126, it has been ruled that the payment of subsistence
allowance, in accordance with the Rules, to an employee under suspension is not a bounty. It is a
right and if a suspended employee is unable to appear for want of funds on account of non-
payment of subsistence allowance, it is a clear case of breach of principles of natural justice on
account of the denial of reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the departmental enquiry
and that vitiates the departmental enquiry and the consequent order of removal from service.
5.2 ENTITLEMENT OF SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE
In joining government service, a person does not surrender his fundamental rights including the
right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution nor the basic human rights and provision for
payment of subsistence allowance in service rules only ensures non-violation of right to life of an
employee. 127
A suspended employee is not entitled to salary but is eligible to get subsistence allowance.
Payment of subsistence allowance is governed by service rules and is given to suspended
employee for his subsistence.128 The employer is under a duty to pay subsistence allowance to
the suspended employee.129 The subsistence allowance paid to the suspended employee must not
be less than the minimum required for the maintenance of the employee and his family. The
suspension allowance has to be paid until the appeal against conviction has been disposed of.130
In Anwarun Nisha Khatoon v. State of Bihar131, the employee claimed subsistence allowance for
the entire period of suspension of her husband, who was not terminated, and during the pendency
of the enquiry had breathed his last. The wife preferred a writ petition before the High Court
which was dismissed on the ground that her husband was only present for one day at the
headquarters and hence, was not entitled to the benefit.
Before the Supreme Court of India, it was argued that under Rule 96(2) of the Bihar
Service Code a Government servant is required to furnish a certificate that he is not engaged in
126
Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P., AIR 2000 SC 2806.
127
Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited, (1999) 3 SCC 679.
128
State of Bihar v. Arbind, (2013) 16 SCC 615.
129
V.R. Patel v. State of Maharashtra, (1968) SLR 593.
130
State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale, AIR 1983 SC 803.
131
Anwarun Nisha Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 703.
- 31 -
any other employment, business, profession or vocation and as such a certificate was never
submitted, the subsistence allowance was not paid.
Reliance was placed upon another decision of the High Court in the case of Ganesh Ram v. State
of Bihar132, wherein the High Court had opined that it was not necessary for an employee to
attend the work after suspension. It was also stated therein that the suspended employee could
not be compelled to mark attendance. Further it was ruled that the authority was entitled to
ensure itself about the presence of suspended employee at the headquarters before making
payment of subsistence allowance and in the event of a dispute it would for the employee to
establish his presence at the headquarters. The Supreme Court of India commenting on the said
decision held that the husband having died, he could not have furnished such a certificate. At no
stage the employer asked him to give such a certificate. Thus, the grant of subsistence allowance
could not be denied on the ground that such a certificate is not given.133
A police officer did not report for duty during the period of suspension for a long period of over
eleven months. The conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority after departmental enquiry
was that his absence was willful. This conclusion was found to be justified. Merely, because
subsistence allowance was not paid it would not justify such absence. However, on facts and
circumstances of the case, instead of removal from service, compulsory retirement was found to
be an appropriate punishment.134
When the rules provide that a public servant may be placed under suspension, they also provide
for payment of an allowance (generally known as a subsistence allowance) during the period of
suspension. The rules therefore, invariably provide for payment of an allowance during the
period of suspension and refer to it as subsistence allowance. The rate or the amount of such
allowance is provided in the rules. Normally it is an amount which is less than the usual salary.135
In O.P. Gupta v. Union of India136, the Supreme Court pointed out that the very expression
―subsistence allowance‖ had an undeniable penal significance. The Court referred to the
dictionary meaning of the word ―subsist‖ as given in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary
132
Ganesh Ram v. State of Bihar, (1995) 2 Pat LJR 690.
133
See State of Bihar v. Arbind, 2013 (10) SCALE 89.
134
State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, (1997) 2 SCC 550.
135
State of M.P. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 1466.
136
AIR 1987 SC 2257.
- 32 -
which was ―to remain alive as on food; to continue to exist‖. It further highlighted that
―subsistence‖ meant ―means of supporting life, specially a minimum livelihood.‖ This level of
existence is one of the reasons as to why a departmental proceeding should be concluded with
diligence within a reasonable period of time.137
5.3 FORMALITIES TO BE COMPLIED WITH FOR EFFECTIVE PAYMENT
The complaint of non-payment of subsistence allowance will not be entertained unless the
conditions prescribed in the Rules are fulfilled e.g. furnishing of non-employment certificate.138
In Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P.,139 subsistence allowance was denied to the
Government Servant since he had omitted to furnish the certificate as required under the Uttar
Pradesh Fundamental Rules 53(2) indicating that he was not employed elsewhere during the
period of suspension. Non-payment of subsistence allowance, the Court held, had vitiated the
departmental enquiry and the consequent removal order.
The complaint of non-payment of subsistence allowance will not be entertained unless the
conditions prescribed in the Rules are fulfilled e.g. furnishing of non-employment certificate.140
In Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P.,141 subsistence allowance was denied to the
Government Servant since he had omitted to furnish the certificate as required under the Uttar
Pradesh Fundamental Rules 53(2) indicating that he was not employed elsewhere during the
period of suspension. Non-payment of subsistence allowance, the Court held, had vitiated the
departmental enquiry and the consequent removal order.
5.4 NON-PAYMENT: VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE
It was stated in Ghanshyam Das Shrivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh142 that the provision for
payment of subsistence allowance also ensures that the employee is in a position to attend the
enquiry and defend him and is therefore an essential element of the principles of natural justice.
Hence, if no subsistence allowance was paid and the employee had no other sources of income,
the employee would be justified in complaining that he was denied a reasonable opportunity of
137
AIR 1987 SC 2257 at 129.
138
A.V. Mohal, v. Senior Superintendent of Post Office, AIR 1991 SC 328.
139
Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P., (2000) 7 SCC 90.
140
A.V. Mohal, v. Senior Superintendent of Post Office, AIR 1991 SC 328.
141
Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P., (2000) 7 SCC 90.
142
AIR 1973 SC 1183.
- 33 -
defending himself.143 Where the financial circumstances were such that the non-payment of
subsistence allowance prevented the delinquent from travelling to the place of enquiry and
attending the proceedings, the ex parte proceedings and the punishment imposed would be
quashed for failure of natural justice caused by the non-payment of subsistence allowance.144
Where however the reason for non-payment of subsistence allowance is attributable to the
conduct of the employee himself i.e. not sending the non-employment certificate as required by
rules, the principle in Ghanshyam Das Shrivastava145 case will not apply.146
Although in principle an employer may be directed to pay full subsistence allowance where the
employer delays the departmental proceedings and takes advantage of his own delay, the position
will be different in a case where the employee was facing criminal charges and proceedings were
pending before competent criminal courts.147 In 2008 the court qualified the principle by saying
that not paying subsistence allowance does not vitiate disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme
Court reversed the decision of the High Court which held that non-payment of subsistence
allowance amounts to violation of natural justice as it found that the employee himself was
responsible for delay in payment. The Supreme Court held that when an opportunity has been
given to receive subsistence allowance, the employee must establish that due to such non-
payment she has not been able to participate in the disciplinary proceedings or he/she has been
prejudiced in the proceedings in any other manner.148
The Supreme Court has also qualified the principle by holding that denial of subsistence
allowance will not be sustained for non-submission of certificate of not being engaged elsewhere
unless the authorities required the suspended employee to furnish such certificate.149
The question whether the non-payment of subsistence allowance results in vitiating the order
imposing penalty was left open by the Supreme Court as the same was not canvassed. 150
143
Ghanshyam Das Shrivastava, v. State of M.P. AIR 1973 SC 1183.
144
Capt. M. Paul Anthony, v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited, (1999) 3 SCC 679.
145
AIR 1973 SC 1183.
146
A.V. Mohal, v. Senior Superintendent of Post Office AIR 1991 SC 328.
147
Principal J.D. Patil Sangludkar v. Ganesh, (2003) 9 SCC 164.
148
State of M.P. v. Shankar Lal, (2008) 2 SCC 55.
149
Anwara Nisha Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 2959.
150
Board of Management of S.V.T. Educational Institution v. A. Raghupathy Bhat, AIR 1997 SC 1898.
- 34 -
Conclusion
The principle enunciated in Ghanshyam Das151, that non-payment would result in violation of
natural justice must necessarily imply that the penalty would be vitiated and the issue could no
longer be res integra. But Ghanshyam Das case was not cited or noticed in the case of Raghupati
Bhat152. In the context of an industrial dispute, the Madras High Court has held that non-payment
of subsistence allowance would not vitiate a domestic enquiry153, distinguishing a judgment to
the contrary of the Karnataka High Court.154
But mere non-payment of subsequent allowance cannot vitiate the enquiry proceedings in every
case. Hence, when the delinquent did not take the stand in enquiry proceedings that such non-
payment incapacitated or caused prejudice in defending his case he is precluded from
challenging the proceedings on such a ground.
CONCLUSION
When a Government officer is placed under suspension, he is looked with suspicious eyes not
only by his colleagues and friends but by public at large too. He is not only denied enjoyment of
status but suspension has some adverse effect in respect of his lifestyle and reputation in society.
Besides, an order of suspension has serious consequences on the career of the employee and has
adverse civil consequences. Cautioning that an order of suspension passed against a Government
servant, is not to be taken lightly, the Kerala High Court in N. Subramanian v. State of Kerala,
said:
‗An order of suspension brings to bear on a Government servant, consequences far more
serious in nature than several of the penalties made mention in Rule II. It has a disastrous impact
on the fair name and good reputation that may have been earned and built up by a Government
servant in the course of many years of service. The damage suffered by him is largely
irreversible because the denigration and disgrace visited on him by an order of suspension is
seldom wiped out by his being reinstated in service.‘
151
AIR 1973 SC 1183.
152
(1997) 10 SCC 178.
153
The Management of Tube Products of India v. Presiding Officer, 1993 Lab IC 627 (Mad).
154
Motor Industrial Co. Limited v. Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, (1988) 2 LLN 260.
- 35 -
Conclusion
The Court further added:

‗It is imperative that the utmost caution and circumspection should be exercised in
passing orders of suspension...resulting in such grave consequences to the Government servant
concerned...It is also necessary to remember that the power of suspension is to be sparingly
exercised and that it is not meant to be used as a mode of giving expression to any displeasure
felt by the appointing authority or the Government in respect of an act of commission or
omission on the part of the officer.‘
Suspension from service has far reaching adverse effects on the employee concerned. He cannot
supplement his subsistence allowance. By an order of suspension, an impression is immediately
created that there has been something very serious against him and its stigma may not be totally
washed away even if subsequently Government servant is exonerated of the charge. Once a
person is acquitted of a criminal charge of lack of evidence, the employer has no option but to
reinstate him and pay him for the period he was under suspension. There is no difference
between ‗honourably acquitted‘ and ‗not acquitted honourably‘.
A few amends could be made in the procedures to make it more practical in its functioning.
Firstly, the deemed suspension which comes into existence if the government servant is detained
in custody for more than 48 hours even in the absence of any order in writing passed by the
competent authority, is an unfair and arbitrary clause in the eyes of the suspended officer. This
leaves the suspended officer helpless. Even without a proper hearing, after 48 hours of detention
in any given case, the Officer is put under suspension and the society treats him with less respect,
due to the stigma attached with it. It is thus necessary to extend the minimum time period after
which the officer is deemed to be under suspension to provide him with substantial time to make
preparations for bail or for collection of evidence to prove his innocence.
Secondly, suspension ‗in contemplation of departmental proceedings’, is another aspect which

needs to be discussed in detail and amended. Suspension attaches with itself far reaching adverse
effects which cannot be washed away even after the officer is exonerated of all charges.
Suspension is not a recognised penalty but it leaves a deep stigma on the Government servant‘s
entire career, even though he may be exonerated afterwards. At no point can the status quo
prevail. Thus, the need of the hour is to provide the officer with the grounds of his suspension
- 36 -
Conclusion
and give him the opportunity to change the minds of the authorities with regard to the suspension
order, leaving no scope regarding arbitrariness or bias in the mind of the suspended officer.
Moreover, public interest should be the guiding factor in deciding if the Government servant be
placed under suspension or not. An order of suspension is not an order imposing punishment on
a person found to be guilty. It is an order against him before he is found guilty to ensure smooth
disposal of the proceedings initiated against him. Such proceedings should be completed
expeditiously, in the public interest and also in the interest of the Government servant concerned.
He has a right to continue in service depending upon the final outcome of the proceedings
instituted against him. Failure to review the order of suspension is bad and not proper and must
be looked into by the concerned authorities well within reasonable time to save the officer
precious time and future damage to reputation.
Lastly, the subsistence allowance paid to the suspended employee must not be less than the
minimum required for the maintenance of the employee and his family. He should not have been
paid subsistence allowance at reduced rates for an unreasonably long period. The allowance has
to be paid until the appeal against conviction has been disposed of, to enable the continuance of
the officer and his family effectively till the charges are proved against him beyond a shadow of
doubt. Subsistence allowance also acts as a tool for the officer and his family, to continue the
fight for justice against an erroneous order of suspension.
The problem with suspension is that it creates a social stigma. The suspended officer feels that he
has become a less respectable and less dignified individual in his society. It causes mental torture
and depression to the suspended government servant. But in reality, Suspension is not really a
kind of punishment but it does indicate that more difficult times are ahead for the suspended
officer. Rarely does the suspended officer think about facing the principal threat. This posed no
problem in the fifties or sixties, when employees‘ salaries were meager, but not today in the high-
wage cost structure of our economy. Placing an employee under suspension hurts the employer
equally bad, who loses the service of the employee during the suspension period, but has to
continue paying him a part of his emolument (Subsistence Allowance).155
155
Dr. Babita Devi Pathania, Service Laws in India, New Era Law Publications (Faridabad) Haryana, first edition,
2016.
- 37 -
Bibliography
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
 DOABIA & DOABIA, THE LAW OF SERVICES AND DISMISSALS, 2, 2015

 DR. BABITA DEVI PATHANIA, SERVICE LAWS IN INDIA (First edition 2016)
 G.B. SINGH, LAW OF SUSPENSION, PENALTIES AND DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRIES, 2005
 MUTHUSWAMY AND BRINDA, MANUAL ON DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS FOR CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT SERVANTS (Swami Publishers (P) Ltd., 6th Edn., 1996)
 NARENDER KUMAR, LAW RELATING TO GOVERNMENT SERVANTS AND MANAGEMENT
PROCEEDINGS, 2008
 SAMARADITYA PAL, THE LAW RELATING TO PUBLIC SERVICES, 1998
 SWAMY‘S MANUAL ON DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, 188, 1996
 THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY, 2000, 1443
WEBSITES
 http://cvc.nic.in/vigman/chapterv.pdf
 http://pergmin.nic.in/ais/ais11.htm
 http://apvc.ap.nic.in/js/vol1/c24t1s22.html
 http://bedget.up.niv.in/financial/%20handbook/volume2/08.html
- 38 -

Suspension Chitra Term Paper PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Suspension Chitra Term Paper PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUSPENSION AND SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE:

Dr. Babita Devi Pathania Chitralekha Katoch

Date: Dr. Babita Devi Pathania

The paper aims to tackle the following problems-

This research paper aims to reach the following conclusions-

1. To understand the concept and objective of Suspension and Subsistence Allowance.

THE CONCEPT OF SUSPENSION

“Suspension is not a Rule, but an Exception”

Suspension according to the Oxford Dictionary means:

It is well-settled that an order of suspension has serious consequences on the career of an

1.2 OBJECT OF SUSPENSION

SUSPENSION AND ITS CLASSIFICATION

The law recognizes three kinds of suspension viz.:

2.2 INTERIM SUSPENSION

Suspension ordered in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings is known as interim suspension.

‗Suspension, specially pending the formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or

The departmental/disciplinary proceedings, the Court said, ―Invariably commence with

2.3 DEEMED OR AUTOMATIC SUSPENSION

Ordinarily, a specific order is to be issued to place a government servant under

(a) Where he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a

(a) The Government servant is dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired as a measure of

2.4 AUTHORITIES COMPETENT TO SUSPEND

(a) The Appointing Authority, as defined in Rule 2 (a);

SUSPENSION AND ITS CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 WHEN SUSPENSION IS RESORTED TO

(a) When disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated or is pending; or

Certain types of misdemeanor where suspension may be desirable in the circumstances

 An offence or conduct involving moral turpitude;

3.2 SUSPENSION WHEN EFFECTIVE

An order of suspension is effective as soon as it is issued or dispatched.

3.3 SUSPENSION PENDING ENQUIRY

When an appointing authority seeks to suspend an employee pending inquiry or contemplated

(i) The gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated.

(a) An administrative act and not a quasi-judicial order.

Fundamental Rule 53 contemplates all kinds of suspension whether it is a penalty or it is as an

3.4 WHEN SUSPENSION SHOULD NOT BE RESORTED TO

3.5 APPLICATION OF MIND AND SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR SUSPENSION

In Dilip Kumar Sarkar v. University of North Bengal73, the petitioner as Controller of

If a statute requires formation of opinion by certain authority before taking any

3.6 EFFECTS OF PROLONGED SUSPENSION

(a) On the conclusion of such inquiry, he has been fully exonerated; or

3.7 DURATION AND REVOCATION OF SUSPENSION

3.7.1 Duration of Suspension

―Strictly speaking there is nothing to interpret in Rule 10 because it is free from

3.7.2 Revocation of Suspension

(a) Departmental Proceedings-

4.1 RESIGNATION AND RETIREMENT

(a) If the alleged offences do not involve moral turpitude; or

4.2 CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION

Though suspension in itself is not a punishment, as it constitutes a great hardship for a

1. Incompetency of the Authority115

SUSPENSION AND SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE

5.2 ENTITLEMENT OF SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE

5.3 FORMALITIES TO BE COMPLIED WITH FOR EFFECTIVE PAYMENT

5.4 NON-PAYMENT: VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE

The Court further added:

Secondly, suspension ‗in contemplation of departmental proceedings’, is another aspect which

 DOABIA & DOABIA, THE LAW OF SERVICES AND DISMISSALS, 2, 2015

You might also like