Shishir Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri H. R. Misra, learned Senior Advocate, Sri K. M. Misra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and leaned Standing Counsel.
(2.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of suspension dated 06,07.2007, by which he has been suspended leveling certain charges . According to the Petitioner, the charges leveled against the Petitioner are no such serious in nature, which can lead to the major punishment like termination, dismissal or removal. Therefore, order of suspension was not warranted. Further submission has been made that is Petitioner would have approached this Court, the order of suspension Could have been quashed. But Petitioner in good faith has waited for disciplinary proceeding to be commenced and final decision to be taken by the relevant authority, but about 2 and 1/2 years have been passed in spite of submission of the charge sheet and the reply submitted by the Petitioner, no final decision has been taken by the authority concerned up -till -date and Petitioner has been deprived of the post and other benefits and status. Petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of the case reported in, 2006 (3) ESC 1755 (All) and has placed reliance upon para 27 of the said judgment... The third and fourth issues can be dealt with together. The questions deal with the prolonged agony and mental torture of an employee under suspension where inquiry either has been commend or proceed with snail pace. This is a different angle of the matter, which is equally important and needs careful consideration. A suspension during contemplation of departmental inquiry or pendency thereof by itself is not a punishment but is resorted to by the competent authority to enquire into the allegations leveled against the employee giving him an opportunity of participation to find out whether the allegations are correct or not. In case, allegations are not found correct the employee is reinstated without any loss towards salary etc. and in case the charges are proved, the disciplinary authority passed such order as provided under law. However, keeping an employee under suspension, either without holding any enquiry, or by prolonging the enquiry is unreasonable and is neither just nor in large public interest. A prolonged suspension by itself is penal. similarly, an order of suspension at the initial stage may be valid fulfilling all the requirements of law, but may become penal or unlawful with the passage of time, if the disciplinary inquiry is unreasonably prolonged or no inquiry is initiated at all without there being any fault or obstruction on the part of the delinquent employee. No person can be kept under suspension for indefinite period since during the period of suspension he is not paid full salary. He is also denial the enjoyment of status and, therefore, admittedly, it has some adverse effect in respect of his status, life style and reputation if Society. A person under suspension is looked with suspicion in the society by the persons with whom he meets in his normal discharge of function.
(3.) Taking support of the aforesaid judgment, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that a prolonged suspension by itself is penal against an employee, it may be that at the initial stage, the order of suspension may not be penal in nature, but if it is permitted to continue for a long period, it will be become penal because a person will be deprived of his post, benefits and status. Therefore, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that order of suspension is liable to be quashed.;