Court reiterates Supreme Court's directive limiting suspension without charge sheet to three months; condemns undue delay in departmental proceedings, emphasizing principles of natural justice and administrative fairness.
In a significant judgment delivered on August 25, 2026, the Jharkhand High Court (Division Bench) dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna Bench, Ranchi Circuit Bench. The CAT had quashed the extension of suspension of an employee, Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, beyond the initial three-month period prescribed by law, holding such extension illegal in the absence of a charge sheet.
The case arose out of a massive fraud involving over Rs. 26 crores at the Giridih Division under the Jharkhand Postal Circle, where Mr. Kumar was employed as Treasurer and later as APM (SB) Counter. He was suspended on September 27, 2019, in contemplation of departmental proceedings, but the charge sheet was served only on March 7, 2022-after a lapse of more than two and a half years. Despite multiple reviews by the Suspension Review Committee (SRC), the suspension was extended repeatedly without formal initiation of departmental action.
The CAT, relying on the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015 AIR SC 2389), held that suspension beyond three months without serving a charge sheet is unlawful. The CAT directed the respondents to pay Mr. Kumar the arrears of salary for the period beyond three months, minus the subsistence allowance already disbursed, and fixed December 27, 2019, as the effective date of revocation of suspension.
The Union of India contended before the Jharkhand High Court that the CAT's order failed to appreciate the gravity of the fraud and the ongoing CBI investigation, which caused delay in issuing the charge sheet. It argued that suspension in such serious cases should not be curtailed merely due to procedural delays. However, the High Court upheld the CAT's reasoning, emphasizing that prolonged suspension without departmental proceedings violates natural justice and fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court underscored that suspension is a preventive measure, not a punishment, and must be subject to strict temporal limits and periodic review as per Rule 10(6) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, and DoPT guidelines dated August 23, 2016. The judgment referred extensively to judicial precedents that denounce undue delays in departmental actions, including State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan and State of M.P. v. Bani Singh, which highlight the prejudice caused to employees by protracted inquiries.
Highlighting the constitutional scope of judicial review under Article 226, the Court observed that intervention is warranted only when an order suffers from an error apparent on the face or is perverse. Finding no such flaw in the CAT's order, the High Court dismissed the petition, thus reinforcing the principle that government authorities must act diligently to conclude departmental proceedings within a reasonable timeframe.
This judgment serves as a stern reminder to public authorities to balance the need for administrative discipline with the fundamental rights of employees, ensuring that suspension remains a tool of temporary preventive action rather than prolonged punitive detention without due process.
Bottom Line:
Prolonged suspension without initiation of departmental proceedings or issuance of a charge sheet is impermissible under law and violates principles of natural justice.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 21, Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (Rule 10(6)), Fundamental Rule 54, DoPT Guidelines dated 23.08.2016
Union of India v. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, (Jharkhand)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2978582
