2017 (12) TMI 1619 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revocation of Suspension order - Reversion of petitioner from the post of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer to the post of Assistant - case of Revenue is that the allegations against the writ petitioner, are serious and therefore, they cannot revoke the order of suspension - Held that - It is mandatory that whenever disciplinary proceedings are initiated against a Government employee, the same should be completed within a reasonable period of time, unless there is an acceptable impediment. Under normal circumstances, the disciplinary proceedings initiated ought to have been completed, without any further delay. The long delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings will certainly cause prejudice to the employees, in respect of their promotions, retiral benefits etc. Thus, the Competent Authorities have to see that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner is concluded, within a reasonable period of time. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the writ petitioner was also reverted to the post of Assistant from the post of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in proceedings dated 18.12.2014 - this Court is of the firm opinion that there is no bar for the respondent to continue the disciplinary proceedings. However, now more than four years have lapsed and there is no reason to continue the order of suspension against the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner may be reinstated and he may be posted in any one of the non-sensitive post till the final disposal of the disciplinary proceedings pending against the writ petitioner - This Court is of further opinion that placing an employee under suspension for an unspecified period will cause monetary loss to the State Exchequer. In the case on hand, the writ petitioner is under continuous suspension for more than four years and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the suspension deserves to be set aside - the order of suspension issued by the respondent in Memo No.EE2/21208/2013 dated 31.3.2016 is quashed and the writ petitioner may be posted in the post of Assistant in any one of the non-sensitive post till the completion of the disciplinary proceedings. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to suspension order, delay in disciplinary proceedings, continuation of suspension, financial implications of prolonged suspension.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a government employee, was suspended on 16.7.2013 due to certain allegations during his tenure as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. Despite submitting explanations and facing reversion to the post of Assistant on 18.12.2014, the suspension was not lifted. The respondent argued that the serious nature of the allegations warranted the continuation of the suspension, especially after a review was rejected on 31.3.2016. The court noted that while suspension during disciplinary proceedings is standard, it should not be prolonged indefinitely, as it prejudices the employee's rights and benefits.

The court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings against a government employee must be completed within a reasonable timeframe unless there are valid reasons for delay. Prolonged delays can harm the employee's career progression and retirement benefits. In this case, there was no allegation of non-cooperation from the petitioner. The court highlighted that the petitioner's reversion to the Assistant post did not hinder the disciplinary process, and there was no justification for the continued suspension after more than four years.

The court opined that indefinite suspension causes financial losses to the state, especially if the suspension exceeds six months, leading to increased subsistence allowances for the employee. The authorities were directed to consider these financial implications and expedite the disciplinary proceedings. Given the extended suspension period, the court set aside the suspension order dated 31.3.2016 and directed the petitioner to be posted in a non-sensitive Assistant post until the disciplinary proceedings conclude. The writ petition was allowed with no costs awarded.