Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Unlawful Suspension of College Employee, Rules Indefinite Suspension Without Disciplinary Proceedings Violates Fairness and Procedural Justice: “Suspension Cannot Be Prolonged Without Formal Inquiry”

Court’s Decision:

The High Court of Calcutta ruled in favor of the petitioner and set aside the suspension order issued on September 15, 2022. The Court held that the suspension was unlawful, as it had been imposed without initiating any formal disciplinary proceedings and was in violation of applicable rules and regulations. The suspension order, which was based on the deeming provision under the university’s regulations, was determined to be arbitrary due to the lack of justification and failure to comply with procedural fairness. Consequently, the Court directed that the petitioner should be allowed to resume his duties immediately after receiving a copy of the judgment.

Facts:

The petitioner had been employed as a cook at Raja Narendralal Khan Women’s College. He had been arrested on August 29, 2022, and was placed in judicial custody until his release on bail on September 9, 2022. After being released on bail, the petitioner attempted to join his duties on September 12, 2022, but was denied the opportunity. Instead, the college issued a suspension order on September 15, 2022, which was made effective from August 30, 2022, the date of his incarceration.

The petitioner challenged the suspension, arguing that it was arbitrary and unjustified, as there was no specific misconduct cited and no opportunity for him to present his case before the suspension was enforced. Additionally, he argued that the suspension was unrelated to his work duties and arose out of a personal issue, involving a dispute over land and an alleged attack on his family.

Issues:

1. Was the suspension order lawfully and justifiably imposed?
2. Is it lawful for the university authorities to continue suspending the petitioner indefinitely without initiating disciplinary proceedings?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner contended that the suspension order was arbitrary and unjustified, as there was no formal inquiry or specific charges against him. He argued that his arrest and the subsequent suspension were not linked to his duties at the college and that the suspension was based on a personal matter unrelated to his professional responsibilities. He further claimed that he had not been given a chance to be heard before the suspension order was issued, and that the suspension violated the principles of natural justice.

Additionally, the petitioner argued that the suspension had continued for an extended period without any formal disciplinary proceedings, making the suspension an arbitrary action by the authorities. The petitioner also highlighted that his salary had been withheld without any valid reason after his suspension.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondents, including the college and the university authorities, defended the suspension. They argued that the petitioner’s conduct had been inappropriate as he left his workplace without informing the authorities and failed to disclose his incarceration. The university claimed that the SMS sent by the petitioner on August 31, 2022, informing the college of his inability to attend work did not mention his imprisonment, which they considered a significant omission of material facts.

The respondents also emphasized that the suspension was mandated by the university’s service regulations, specifically regulation 11(iv), which automatically deemed an employee suspended if they were in police custody for more than 48 hours. They further asserted that the suspension could only be revoked at the discretion of the authorities based on the severity of the misconduct, and no disciplinary proceedings had been initiated due to the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner.

Analysis of the Law:

The Court analyzed the relevant university regulations, particularly regulation 11(iv), which provides for the automatic suspension of an employee who is detained in police custody for more than 48 hours. However, the Court found that while the suspension may have been deemed to be imposed under this provision, its indefinite continuation without a formal disciplinary process violated principles of fairness and procedural justice.

The Court pointed out that although the university had invoked the deeming provision, the regulations did not permit an indefinite suspension without initiating a formal inquiry or disciplinary proceedings. The Court underscored that suspension is detrimental to an employee’s career and well-being, and therefore, should not be prolonged without valid justification or timely proceedings.

Precedent Analysis:

The Court referenced several precedents to strengthen its argument:

• Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India: The Supreme Court in this case had emphasized that a suspension should not exceed three months unless formal charges are served to the employee. The Court expressed disapproval of indefinite suspensions without a charge sheet.
• K. Jayaram v. Bangalore Development Authority: This case discussed how the suppression of material facts, such as not informing the authorities about the petitioner’s detention, amounts to misconduct. However, the Court differentiated the petitioner’s case from this precedent, as the suppression of facts was not linked to his official duties.

These precedents helped the Court articulate that prolonged suspensions without disciplinary proceedings are illegal and violate an employee’s right to a fair process.

Court’s Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that while the university had the right to suspend the petitioner under regulation 11(iv), the suspension should not continue indefinitely without a formal inquiry or disciplinary proceedings. The Court noted that suspension is a serious action that impacts an employee’s livelihood, and it cannot be prolonged indefinitely without addressing the underlying misconduct through an appropriate procedure.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the university had failed to take any steps to initiate disciplinary proceedings, despite a significant amount of time passing. The Court emphasized that an indefinite suspension could lead to arbitrariness and unfair treatment, which must be avoided under the law.

Conclusion:

The Court concluded that the suspension order dated September 15, 2022, was unjustified and unlawful. It ordered the university to revoke the suspension and allowed the petitioner to resume his duties immediately. The Court also directed that the petitioner be paid all consequential benefits from the time of his suspension.

Implications:

This ruling establishes the principle that suspension cannot be imposed arbitrarily or continued indefinitely without formal disciplinary proceedings. The case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural fairness in employment matters and protecting the rights of employees from arbitrary actions by employers. The judgment also reinforces the need for prompt action in cases of suspension, ensuring that employees are not left in limbo without a resolution.

Also Read – Supreme Court Sets Aside 28-Year-Old Claim, Holds That Defaulting Allottees Cannot Seek Possession After Prolonged Delay; Mandates Fresh Auction for Plot Allocation to Ensure Transparency and Compliance