Factors to be considered by disciplinary authority for suspension of employee prior to departmental enquiry

 The purpose of suspension of an employee in service jurisprudence is two fold. The traditional and dominant purpose of suspension is to aid and assist a disciplinary enquiry against an employee. Suspension in such cases is not a punishment. The second known purpose of suspension is to impose it as a punishment.

11. Law on suspension has been settled by high judicial authority. In the light of consistent judicial pronouncements, principles of the law on suspension can be stated.

12. When suspension is made in contemplation of a disciplinary enquiry, certain prerequisites have to be satisfied. An enquiry should be contemplated or underway into charges of misconduct. The charges of misconduct, if proved, should be serious enough to warrant a major penalty.

13. The order of suspension should be passed after due and independent application of mind. The suspension should not be made as a matter of routine resulting from a suspension syndrome.

14. At the stage of suspension the veracity of the charges cannot be ascertained and the merits of the defence cannot be examined. However, the order of suspension should disclose a prima facie act of misconduct.

15. Suspension in contemplation of an enquiry, is made to aid the process of enquiry. Suspension takes out the delinquent employee from his domain of influence. This ensures that the enquiry is independent and fair.

16. Suspension also takes off the charged employee from his regular duties. This enables the employee to join the enquiry proceedings and give fulsome cooperation to the enquiry officer. It also gives him adequate time to prepare his defence. Continuing the employee on regular duties, with an enquiry on foot, would not be in institutional interests either. The official work would suffer and the enquiry proceedings would be impeded. The suspension in such cases not a punishment.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Writ A. No. 20262 of 2018

Decided On: 03.10.2018

 Deepika Shukla  Vs.  State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ajay Bhanot, J.

Citation: 2018 (6) AWC 6050.

Print Page

Whether Major punishment can be imposed on employee without oral enquiry?

A supplementary affidavit has been filed in which it has been alleged in para 4 that the petitioner was given charge-sheet and he was allowed to see the required documents but since he did not request for any date for the enquiry no date was fixed. In our opinion this is not the correct way in which the respondents should have proceeded. Even if the petitioner had not requested for an oral enquiry yet it was incumbent upon the respondents to have issued a notice fixed date, time and place of the enquiry and naming the enquiry officer.

4. In cases where a major punishment proposed to be imposed an oral enquiry is a must, whether the employee request, for it or not. For this it is necessary to issue a notice to the employee concerned intimating him date, time and place of the enquiry as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chcndra Sharma v. Managing Director MANU/UP/0757/1999 against which SLP has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16.8.2000.

5. Following the aforesaid decision we are of the view that the impugned termination order was passed without holding enquiry against the petitioner which is illegal and it is hereby quashed. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4640 of 1999

Decided On: 08.05.2001

Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs.  U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Markandey Katju and R.B. Mishra, JJ.

Print Page