2017 (12) TMI 1866 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking to re-instate the petitioner in service - petitioner was placed under suspension from service with effect from 5-9-2016 under Rule 10 (3) of Kerala Civil Services (Classification, control Appeal) Rules, 1960 on the reason that the petitioner was detained under custody for more than 48 hours - HELD THAT - Suspension cannot be said to be a punishment. However, prolonged suspension amounts to punishment. In view of the above reason, this Court is of the view that the continued suspension of the petitioner will not be justified in this case. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to be re-instated in service immediately. For the said reason, the 2nd respondent is directed to pass affirmative orders on Ext. P22 as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of 20 days from today. The learned Special Public Prosecutor will transmit a copy of this order to the 2nd respondent. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Suspension of the petitioner from service under Rule 10 (3) of Kerala Civil Services Rules, 1960.
2. Petitioner's request for reinstatement and quashing of suspension order.
3. Prolonged suspension and its implications.
4. Direction to the 2nd respondent for reinstatement within a specified period.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner was suspended from service under Rule 10 (3) of Kerala Civil Services (Classification, control & Appeal) Rules, 1960 due to being detained in connection with a criminal case. The suspension, initiated through Ext. P20 order, has not been revoked, and the petitioner has been under suspension for over 15 months.

2. The petitioner sought reinstatement through Ext. P22 request, which was not acted upon, leading to the petitioner still being under suspension. The court acknowledged that suspension is not a punishment per se, but prolonged suspension can amount to punishment. Therefore, the court directed the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner immediately, quash the suspension order, and pass affirmative orders on Ext. P22 within 20 days.

3. The court emphasized that while suspension is not punitive, prolonged suspension can be considered a form of punishment. In this case, the court found the continued suspension unjustified due to the prolonged duration and the ongoing investigation. The court's decision to order immediate reinstatement was based on the principle that extended suspension without conclusion of the investigation was unwarranted.

4. The judgment highlighted the need for expeditious action in completing the investigation, as it had been pending for nearly two years. The Investigating Agency was directed to expedite the investigation as per the directions of a previous Division Bench judgment. The court's decision to dispose of the writ petition with the reinstatement order was aimed at ensuring timely resolution of the petitioner's suspension and the pending investigation.