Haryana Civil Services Rules | Suspension Of Employee Remains In Force Until Revoked: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a suspension order against a government employee continues to remain in effect until it is expressly revoked by the competent authority in accordance with Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 2019.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal pursuing  Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 2019 said, "Regulation 5 make it clear that once a suspension order is passed, it shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by competent authority. Sub-Regulations (5) & (7) would become otiose if it is held that in every case, on the expiry of 90 days, if departmental proceedings are not initiated, the entire proceedings would vitiate."

The plea was filed by an employee of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam who was suspended following his arrest in a corruption case.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that he was suspended on 30 October 2024 and as per Regulations 5 of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016 read with Rule 5 of 2019 Regulations, order of suspension cannot remain in force beyond 90 days unless it is extended.

Per contra, the Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that clauses (a) (b) and (c) of Regulation 5(1) of 2019 Regulations are independent from each other.

Each clause addresses different factual scenario and is applicable to different situation. Proviso after clause (c) of Regulation 5(1) is applicable to clause (a) and (c) whereas case of the petitioner is covered by clause (b), thus, period of 90 days to initiate departmental proceedings from the date of suspension is not applicable, he added.

After examining the submissions and perusing the Regulations, the Court noted that Regulation 5(1) of 2019 Regulations contemplates three situations, each requiring an order to be passed by the competent authority.

Sub-Regulation (2) contemplates two situations. There is no need to pass order under Sub- Regulation (2). An employee is deemed to be placed under suspension upon the occurrence of contemplated situation, added the judge .

Justice Bansal highlighted that the petitioner was suspended on account of his arrest by police authorities and his case squarely falls under clause (b) of Regulation 5(1).

"There is proviso after clause (b) which requires that suspended employee shall be bound to mark his presence on all working days in the office where his headquarter is fixed. There is another proviso below clause (c). The petitioner is trying to claim that said proviso is applicable to all three clauses. It is true that said proviso is below clause (c) and is applicable to all the clauses, however, there is need to examine whether requirement of 90 days is applicable to all the situations contemplated by Regulation 5 or it is applicable to a particular situation," he added.

The Court explained that Clause (a) is applicable where disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or pending. Clause (b) is applicable where a criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial against an employee. Clause (c) is applicable where competent authority is of the opinion that employee is engaged in the activities which are prejudicial to interest of the organization.

"The proviso after clause (c) categorically provides that where disciplinary proceedings are contemplated and employee is suspended, the department shall be bound to initiate proceedings within 90 days from the date of suspension," the bench said.

It concluded that from the reading of proviso, it is quite clear that period of 90 days is applicable where an employee is suspended on account of contemplated disciplinary proceedings. It is not even applicable where proceedings are pending. It is applicable only where disciplinary proceedings are contemplated.

"There is logic and reason for prescribing 90 days period where proceedings are contemplated. Contemplation of proceedings means the competent authority may or may not initiate the proceedings. Contemplation is a mere thought process which may or may not entail departmental proceedings," the bench elucidated.

Furthermore, the Court opined that the Suspension on account of criminal proceedings is an independent event for placing a Government Employee under suspension. 

"The conclusion of criminal proceedings is not in the hands of the appointing authority. The proviso has protected employees from misuse of power of suspension in the name of contemplated departmental proceedings," it said.

In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.

Mr. Ankur Lal, Advocate for the petitioner

Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3

 Title: Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana and others

Click here to read/download the order