Court’s decision
The Karnataka High Court, per Justice M. Nagaprasanna, allowed the writ petition filed by a government employee challenging his suspension order issued under Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The Court held that the order of suspension was vitiated due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirement under Rule 10(3), which obligates the employer to pass a fresh or continued order of suspension within ninety days supported by recorded reasons. The Court observed that the employer merely issued a mechanical, one-line continuation order without conducting any review, assigning reasons, or examining whether continued suspension was justified.
The Court found that the suspension was prolonged without statutory compliance, despite the fact that the employee had been released from custody long ago and departmental proceedings had neither been initiated nor progressed. It held that suspension is not a punishment and cannot continue indefinitely in violation of statutory safeguards, particularly when the liberty of an employee is impacted. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the impugned suspension order along with its extension order and directed the employer to reinstate the employee forthwith, reserving liberty to initiate proper disciplinary proceedings if required.
Facts
The Petitioner, a government servant, was placed under suspension on the ground that he had been in custody for more than forty-eight hours in connection with a criminal case. The initial order was issued under Rule 10(2)(a) of the KCSR, which mandates suspension when an employee is in custody beyond the stipulated period. After his release on bail, no departmental inquiry was initiated, and no further material was collected to justify the continuation of suspension.
Despite the Petitioner repeatedly submitting representations, the Respondent Department issued a one-line continuation order under Rule 10(3) without assigning reasons or conducting a review. The Petitioner approached the High Court, contending that the continuation of suspension was illegal as the mandatory review within ninety days was not conducted in accordance with the Rule.
Issues
The core issues before the Court were:
- Whether a suspension initially imposed under Rule 10(2)(a) automatically continues after the employee is released from custody.
- Whether Rule 10(3) requires a reasoned order supported by review and application of mind for continuation of suspension.
- Whether a bald, mechanical continuation order satisfies statutory requirements.
- Whether prolonged suspension without departmental inquiry amounts to arbitrary exercise of power.
Petitioner’s arguments
The Petitioner argued that the initial suspension under Rule 10(2)(a) ceases to have effect once the employee is released from custody. Therefore, if the employer chooses to continue the suspension, the mandatory review contemplated under Rule 10(3) must be conducted. It was argued that the impugned continuation order was cryptic, did not record reasons, and was issued without any assessment of whether the suspension was still necessary.
The Petitioner emphasised that he had been out of custody for several months, was cooperating with investigation, and no departmental inquiry had been initiated despite the lapse of considerable time. Prolonging suspension under such circumstances amounted to punishment and violated the jurisprudence evolved by constitutional courts that suspension cannot be indefinite or mechanical.
Respondent’s arguments
The Respondent contended that the suspension under Rule 10(2)(a) was valid as the Petitioner had remained in custody for more than forty-eight hours. They argued that continuation under Rule 10(3) was permissible and that the Department’s internal note sheets indicated that relevant materials were examined. It was submitted that the continuation order, though brief, should be construed as fulfilling the procedural requirements.
The Respondent also submitted that the criminal case was pending and that reinstatement of the employee could prejudice departmental interest. They requested the Court not to interfere with the suspension and allow the executive to decide whether the employee’s presence in service would affect the administration.
Analysis of the law
The Court examined Rule 10 of the KCSR in detail. Rule 10(2)(a) mandates suspension when an employee remains in custody for more than forty-eight hours. However, Rule 10(3) requires that any continuation of suspension must be supported by a review conducted within ninety days. This review must culminate in an order assigning reasons for continuation. The Court held that the legislature intentionally required such a review to ensure that suspension does not become arbitrary or punitive.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the continuation order must reflect application of mind and cannot be an empty formality. The statutory requirement cannot be bypassed by issuing a bald extension order unaccompanied by reasons. The Court analysed administrative law principles, emphasising that even when statutory rules do not expressly mandate a detailed order, reasons become mandatory when the order affects civil consequences.
Precedent analysis
The Court relied on principles laid down by the Supreme Court on suspension jurisprudence. Though specific case names were not detailed in the extracted portions, the well-established rule is that suspension must not be prolonged without justification and cannot be used as a tool of harassment. Courts have repeatedly held that prolonged suspension violates Articles 14 and 21, especially when departmental authorities fail to act expeditiously or comply with statutory procedures. The High Court applied these principles to hold that non-compliance with Rule 10(3) renders the continuation order illegal.
Court’s reasoning
Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that the Department failed to conduct any review as mandated. The continuation order was a mere reproduction of the Rule without disclosing reasons or material considered. The Court underscored that the absence of reasons reflects non-application of mind and renders the order unsustainable. It noted that the employee had been out of custody, no departmental inquiry had commenced, and the suspension was continued mechanically.
The Court reasoned that Rule 10(3) acts as a safeguard against abuse of suspension powers. The Respondent’s failure to adhere to this safeguard invalidated the entire action. The Court also noted that suspension cannot be punitive and that the Department cannot keep an employee out of service indefinitely based on a pending criminal case without evaluating necessity.
Conclusion
The High Court quashed both the original continuation order and the subsequent review order, holding that they were arbitrary and violative of Rule 10(3). The Court directed reinstatement of the Petitioner forthwith, making it clear that the Department is at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings if warranted. The judgment reinforces that suspension must be procedurally fair, time-bound, and justified by specific reasons.
Implications
This judgment has significant implications for service law in Karnataka. It places strict limits on the power of the government to continue suspension without following Rule 10(3). It sends a clear message that mechanical or template-based continuation orders will not withstand judicial scrutiny. It strengthens employee protections by ensuring that suspension is not used punitively. The ruling will guide future administrative decisions and ensure adherence to constitutional principles of fairness, proportionality, and non-arbitrariness.