Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Chhabubai Bhimsing Rathod, a servant of Zilla Parishad, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, filed a writ petition challenging her suspension order dated 15/05/2024 issued by the Chief Executive Officer. She had earlier filed Writ Petition No.14409/2023 seeking transfer to a particular health centre, which was disposed of with a direction to consider her representation. Subsequently, she was suspended. The petitioner alleged harassment by the Medical Officer and a Health Worker, and claimed that her suspension was deliberate. She contended that the suspension order should be quashed as it continued beyond 90 days without a charge-sheet, relying on Ajay Kumar Choudhari v. Union of India. The respondents argued that a charge-sheet cum show cause notice dated 23/08/2024 had been served, and the petitioner had locked her residence, hampering communication. The court examined the law on suspension and held that the mere continuation of suspension beyond 90 days does not automatically vitiate the order if a charge-sheet is served. The court noted that the employer had initiated disciplinary proceedings and the charge-sheet was served. The court declined to interfere with the suspension order, stating that it does not sit in appeal over the employer's decision unless the order is perverse or illegal. The writ petition was dismissed, and rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Suspension - Duration of Suspension - Charge-sheet - The court considered whether a suspension order must be automatically quashed if it extends beyond 90 days without a charge-sheet. Relying on Ajay Kumar Choudhari v. Union of India, the court held that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if charge-sheet is not served; however, if charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order for extension is required. In this case, charge-sheet was served on 23/08/2024, and the petition was filed on 18/08/2024 (93rd day). The court found that the employer had initiated disciplinary proceedings and the suspension was not arbitrary. (Paras 8-9, 13) B) Service Law - Suspension - Judicial Review - Writ Jurisdiction - The court held that while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226, it must assess whether the impugned order is perverse, illegal, or without authority of law. The court should not step into the shoes of the employer to assess whether suspension was deserved. Since the employer had applied its mind and issued a charge-sheet, the suspension order was not interfered with. (Paras 6, 13) C) Service Law - Suspension - Authority of Employer - The court noted that there was no dispute regarding the authority of the employer to issue the suspension order. The employer had initiated a departmental enquiry and served a charge-sheet cum show cause notice containing six charges. The petitioner's conduct of locking her residence and avoiding communication was also noted. (Paras 6, 13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suspension order dated 15/05/2024 placing the petitioner under suspension should be quashed on the ground that it continued beyond 90 days without issuance of charge-sheet, and whether the court should interfere with the employer's decision to suspend.
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed. Rule discharged.
Law Points
- Suspension order cannot be set aside solely because it continued beyond 90 days if charge-sheet is served
- Employer's authority to suspend is not interfered with lightly
- Writ Court does not sit in appeal over employer's suspension order
- Charge-sheet cum show cause notice served within reasonable time justifies continued suspension
