The Court ruled that suspension exceeding 90 days without issuance of a charge sheet may not be illegal, especially when departmental charges have been filed and an inquiry initiated.

1. Consent for Final Hearing:
The case was heard and decided with the consent of both parties.

2. Prayer Clauses in Petition:
The petitioner sought to quash the suspension order issued by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Zilla Parishad, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, dated 15.05.2024, and prayed for reinstatement.

3. Prior Writ Petition:
The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 14409/2023, asking for a transfer to a specific Health Centre. The court declined to entertain the petition but directed the Zilla Parishad to consider her representation.

4. Petitioner’s Grievance Against Suspension:
The petitioner was suspended on 15.05.2024, citing harassment by a medical officer and health worker. She claimed her suspension was deliberate and intended to harass her, as her complaints were not addressed.

5. Petition Filed After 90 Days:
The petition was filed on the 93rd day of her suspension, and the petitioner argued that the suspension should be quashed as more than 90 days had passed without reinstatement.

6. Court’s Stance on Employer’s Discretion:
The Court reiterated that it cannot decide whether the petitioner deserved suspension, especially when a charge-sheet and show-cause notice had been issued.

7. Reliance on Ajay Kumar Choudhari Judgment:
The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhari v. Union of India (2015), where a prolonged suspension without disciplinary proceedings was quashed. The Court distinguished the present case, noting the petitioner was already served with a charge-sheet.

8. Principles from Abdul Rehman Antulay Case:
The Court referred to guidelines from Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, emphasizing that there is no fixed time limit for trials and that each case’s circumstances must be considered.

9. Suspension Beyond 90 Days Not Automatic Grounds for Reinstatement:
The Court held that suspension beyond 90 days is not illegal if a charge-sheet has been issued and the employer is conducting a departmental inquiry.

10. Judgment in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal:
The Court referred to Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, where it was held that suspension should not be exercised arbitrarily and is justified in cases of serious misconduct or indiscipline.

11. Legal Jurisdiction and Equity:
The Court cited judgments supporting the view that legal jurisdiction must be tempered with equity and should be exercised sparingly in certain cases.

12. Judgment in Sunita Chandrakant Kalekar Case:
The Court referred to the judgment in Sunita Chandrakant Kalekar v. Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur which upheld the right of the employer to suspend employees when a disciplinary inquiry is either contemplated or pending.

13. Employer's Discretion and Supervisory Jurisdiction:
The Court held that it cannot interfere in the employer’s discretionary suspension orders unless they are evidently perverse or illegal.

14. Dismissal of the Petition:
The Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, holding that the suspension was lawful as a charge-sheet had been served.

15. Rule Discharged:
The Court discharged the rule, concluding the case.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 226 seeking relief against the suspension order.
• Ajay Kumar Choudhari v. Union of India (2015): This case was cited for the principle that suspensions should not extend beyond three months without a charge sheet being served.

Ratio Decidendi:

• Suspension beyond 90 days does not automatically entitle the employee to reinstatement if charges have been issued and a departmental inquiry is underway.
• The Court cannot act as an appellate authority over suspension orders unless they are clearly illegal or issued without authority.

Subjects:

Administrative Law, Service Law, Suspension, Writ of Certiorari.

Suspension Order, Departmental Inquiry, Service Law, Administrative Justice, Employer Discretion, Article 226, Zilla Parishad