The single-judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the purpose of suspension is to complete the proceedings unhindered. Suspension is an interim measure in aid of disciplinary proceedings so that the delinquent may not gain custody or control of papers or take any advantage of his position.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant and upon certain allegations, disciplinary action was initiated against the Petitioner and directed the Petitioner to submit a detailed explanation. Furthermore, after receiving the explanation, the 2nd respondent was pleased to reinstate the petitioner into service and the petitioner was readmitted by the 3rd respondent. The Petitioner was suspended and the order does not contain any reasons for the suspension. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner contended that the order passed was bad in law. It was furthermore contended that at the time when the suspension order was passed, no reason and neither any inquiry nor criminal case/trial was pending nor was in contemplation.
Observations of the Court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the purpose of suspension is to allow the processes to finish without hindrance. In order to prevent the delinquent from obtaining custody of documents, controlling them, or abusing their position, suspension serves as a temporary remedy to support disciplinary actions.
The court noted that though the order of suspension is not a punishment, however, in the present case, the order of suspension has been passed in a stigmatic manner. The order passed also didn’t disclose any reason for suspension.
The court relied upon the judgment titled Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India in which it was held that suspension is a colonial hangover and used as a weapon to target a Government employee.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the suspension order passed deserves to be set aside.
The decision of the Court
With the above direction, the court allowed the writ petition.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao
Case No.: WRIT PETITION No.5579 of 2017
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
