Court Orders Re-evaluation of Salary Entitlements, Criticizes State’s Two-Year Delay in Revocation Decision
In a significant decision, the Allahabad High Court has set aside the prolonged suspension of Dr. Ravindra Singh, a government medical officer, who had been under a deemed suspension since June 2022 following his detention related to criminal charges. The judgment, delivered by Justice Indrajeet Shukla, underscored the arbitrary and unjustified delay by the Uttar Pradesh authorities in revoking the suspension, criticizing it as an example of "malice in law."
Dr. Singh was suspended under Rule 4(3)(a) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, due to a period of custody exceeding 48 hours. Despite his release on bail in October 2022, the competent authority failed to act on his representation for nearly two years, only revoking the suspension in July 2024 after court intervention. The court labeled this inaction as arbitrary and without lawful justification.
Justice Shukla highlighted the statutory requirement for a prompt decision on such representations, emphasizing that the continuation of deemed suspension beyond release from custody necessitates an express and reasoned order. The ruling criticized the authorities' failure to adhere to this mandate, which resulted in Dr. Singh being kept in an unjustified state of limbo.
Furthermore, the court invalidated the decision to defer salary payments until the conclusion of ongoing criminal proceedings, noting the lack of statutory basis for such a postponement. The judgment remanded the matter to the Under Secretary of Medical, Health and Family Welfare, U.P., for reconsideration of Dr. Singh's salary entitlement during the suspension period, excluding the time spent in detention.
Justice Shukla’s decision also drew attention to the broader implications of such administrative lapses, noting the unnecessary deprivation of public service and potential wastage of public funds. The court has directed that a new, reasoned order be issued within two months, ensuring Dr. Singh's entitlements are reconsidered in light of the observations made.
This ruling not only provides relief to Dr. Singh but also sets a precedent emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and timely administrative action in disciplinary matters involving government servants.
Bottom Line :
Service Law - Deemed suspension under Rule 4(3)(a) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 does not automatically cease on release from custody, but its continuance beyond release requires a conscious and prompt decision under Rule 4(3)(b) - Inaction of competent authority for nearly two years on employee's representation seeking revocation of deemed suspension is arbitrary, attracts malice in law, and order deferring decision on salary till conclusion of criminal trial without statutory basis is unsustainable.
Statutory provision(s): U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, Rules 4(3)(a), 4(3)(b), 4(8)
Dr. Ravindra Singh v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2989095
