Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) SRI Sujeet Kumar Rai, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent stated at the Bar that oral enquiry has already completed and proceedings shall be finalized and concluded by passing a final order within a month.
(2.) IT is contended that petitioner was placed under suspension on 21.5.2002 and for last almost nine years departmental proceedings have not been completed. The petitioner has also pleaded that subsistence allowance has not been paid. It is really surprising and shocking. The order of suspension in pending or contemplated enquiry cannot be utilized or deemed to be penal order and employer cannot keep disciplinary proceedings pending for such a long time. this Court in the case of Smt. Anshu Bharti Vs. State of U.P. and others, : 2009 (1) AWC 691, (paras 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13), observed: 9...... The prolonged suspension of the petitioner is clearly unjust and unwarranted. The question deals with the prolonged agony and mental torture of a suspended employee where inquiry either has not commenced or proceed with snail pace. Though suspension in a contemplated or pending inquiry is not a punishment but 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 if resorted to by the competent authority to enquire into the allegations levelled against the employee giving him an opportunity of participation to find out whether the allegations are correct or not with due diligence and within a reasonable time. 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 passes such order as provided under law. However, keeping an employee under suspension, either without holding any enquiry, or in a prolonged enquiry is unreasonable. It is neither just nor in larger 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 denied the enjoyment of status and therefore admittedly it has some adverse effect in respect of his status, life style and reputation in 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. 10. A Division Bench of this Court in Gajendra Singh Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad : 2004 (3) UPLBEC 2934 observed as under: We need not forget that when a Government officer is placed under suspension, he is looked with suspicious eyes not only by his collogues and friends but by public at large too. 11. Disapproving unreasonable prolonged suspension, the Apex Court in Public Service Tribunal Bar Association Vs. State of U.P. & others, 2003 (1) UPLBEC 780 (SC) observed as under: If a suspension continues for indefinite period or the order of suspension passed is malafide, then it would be open to the employee to challenge the same by approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution........................(Para 26) 12. The statutory power conferred upon the disciplinary authority to keep an employee under suspension during contemplated or pending disciplinary enquiry cannot thus be interpreted in a manner so as to confer an arbitrary, unguided an absolute power to keep an employee under suspension without enquiry for unlimited period or by prolonging enquiry unreasonably, particularly when the delinquent employee is not responsible for such delay. Therefore, I am clearly of the opinion that a suspension, if prolonged unreasonably without holding any enquiry or by prolonging the enquiry itself, is penal in nature and cannot be sustained. 13. The view I have taken is supported from another Judgment of this Court in Ayodhya Rai & others Vs. State of U.P. & others, 2006 (3) ESC 1755.
(3.) HOWEVER , since Sri Sujeet Kumar Rai in the present case has made a statement on behalf of respondents that departmental enquiry shall be concluded and final order shall be passed within one month, I dispose of the writ petition, with the consent of parties, in the following manner: i. As stated by Sri Sujeet Kumar Rai, Advocate, respondents, employer shall conclude departmental enquiry and pass a final order within six weeks from today i.e. by 18th April, 2012. ii In case proceedings are not concluded by aforesaid date, order of suspension shall cease to operate w.e.f. 19.4.2012 but that shall not prejudice pending proceedings against petitioner. iii. So far as subsistence allowance is concerned, petitioner may approach competent authority by making an appropriate representation in this regard within a week from today and in case such a representation is made, the same shall be considered and decided by appropriate concerned authority within two weeks thereafter and any amount due to the petitioner shall be paid within two weeks thereafter.;