Prolonged Deemed Suspension Without Express Decision Violates Disciplinary Rules: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court clarified deemed suspension rules holding that the State cannot keep a government servant in a state of 'limbo' by failing to pass an express order on the continuation or revocation of a deemed suspension. The Bench underscored that while deemed suspension is a legal fiction triggered by detention, its prolongation beyond release requires a conscious, reasoned decision, failing which the action is vitiated by 'malice in law.'

A Single Judge bench of Justice Indrajeet Shukla heard the petition challenging an order that revoked a doctor's deemed suspension after two years of silence but deferred his salary claims until the conclusion of criminal trials. The Allahabad High Court found this deferment and the prior two-year inaction to be an arbitrary exercise of power lacking statutory sanction.

Legal Mandate for Reconsidering Deemed Suspension

The Allahabad High Court observed that while the concept of deemed suspension under Section 4(3)(a) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 is automatic upon 48 hours of detention, Rule 4(3)(b) introduces a specific statutory mechanism for reconsideration. The bench noted that unlike the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 or the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 explicitly casts an obligation on the authority to pass an appropriate order upon receiving a representation.

The Allahabad High Court explained the statutory mandate on deemed suspension rules that "The legislative intent underlying Rule 4(3)(b) is thus clear: the requirement of an express decision for continuance of deemed suspension is mandatory. Any other interpretation would render the latter part of the provision otiose and meaningless, which is a construction that ought to be avoided."

Observations on 'Malice in Law'

Criticizing the two-year delay by the State respondents, the Allahabad High Court remarked that such inaction speaking 'malice in law' as it disregard the statutory rights of the employee. The Bench relied on Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited v. RDS Projects and Others to distinguish between personal ill-will and legal malice, noting that exercise of power without lawful justification or in disregard of the statutory scheme constitutes the latter.

The Allahabad High Court issued the following directions: "The impugned order dated 12.07.2024 is unsustainable in law and is, accordingly, set aside. Respondent No. 3, namely, the Under Secretary, Medical, Health and Family Welfare, U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, is directed to reconsider the issue of payment of salary for the period of deemed suspension, excluding the period of detention, afresh, and pass a reasoned and speaking order in terms of observations and remarks made in proceedings paragraph of this judgment within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order."

Background

The petitioner, a Medical Officer, was placed under deemed suspension in 2022 following his detention in two criminal cases involving allegations under Sections 376 and 306 of the IPC. Although he was released on bail in October 2022 and immediately applied for joining, the authorities remained silent for nearly two years. It was only after a previous High Court direction that the State revoked the suspension in July 2024 but stipulated that his salary for the suspension period would depend on the trial outcome.

The petitioner argued that this deferment lacked statutory backing, especially since he had been acquitted in one case (where the court even directed proceedings against the prosecutrix for false evidence) and the other case was stayed by a Criminal Revision. The State contended that the charges were serious and involved moral turpitude under Rule 3 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956.

Setting aside the impugned order, the Allahabad High Court emphasized that the authorities cannot sit tight on representations. It distinguished the present case from Union of India v. Rajiv Kumar, noting that while the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 (as discussed in Chandra Shekhar Saxena v. Director of Education (Basic) and Another) might allow for continued suspension without new orders, the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 provides a distinct right of representation that must be adjudicated promptly.

Case Details:
Case No.: Writ A No. 6327 of 2024
Case Title: Dr. Ravindra Singh Versus State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. And 5 Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Dharmendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): C.S.C.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 1183