Surendran vs State of Kerala

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.—Appellants were placed under suspension as allegations of commission of criminal offence were made against them. The allegations were to the effect that they were involved in a theft case, and had stolen pepper and cashew from the farm where they were employed. Because of prolonged suspension, the appellants contended that order of suspension should be reviewed. The request made by the appellants was considered and was turned down. Learned Single Judge did not accept the prayer of the appellants for terminating the suspension. According to learned counsel for the appellants, prolonged suspension without any progress departmentally is arbitrary. Learned counsel for the State submitted that because of the involvement of a criminal case, the action was proper and in order.

"Suspension" is provided in Rule 10 under Part IV of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 (in short the Rules''). Rule 10(1)(b) deals with suspension where a case against the concerned officer in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. The power to suspend a person is discretionary as will be evident in the context it is used, from the expression ''may'' used in Rule 10. In passing an order of suspension, the authority is required to take into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be enquired into or investigated and the nature of offence placed before the authority. There should be an application of mind. It should not be an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It is to be noted that such an order is an administrative order and not a quasi judicial order. The order of suspension does not put an end to service. The real effect of the order of suspension is that though the civil servant continues to be a member of the service, he is not permitted to work and is paid only subsistence allowance, which is less than the salary. Suspension merely suspends the claim to salary. During suspension there is suspension allowance. (See Khem Chand Vs. Union of India (UOI), ). There would be no question of salary accruing or accruing due so long as order of suspension stand. (See The The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, . There is no doubt that an order of suspension, unless the departmental inquiry is concluded within a reasonable time affects an employee injuriously. The very expression "subsistence allowance" has an undeniable penal significance. The dictionary meaning of the word "subsist" as given in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Volume II is "to remain above as on food; to continue to exist". "Subsistence" means - means of supporting life, especially a minimum livelihood. But, at the same time, there should not be unusual delay in considering the question whether the departmental proceeding is to be terminated. Power of revocation is also in the discretion of the authority in terms of Rule 10(6). In the instant case, the authority did not consider it to be a fit case for revocation of suspension. Presently, we do not consider that there has been unusual passage of time to warrant interference. Further, if there is any unusual delay in proceeding the matter, it is open to the appellants to move appropriate authority for reconsideration of the matter. If such a motion is made it shall be considered in its proper perspective.

The writ appeal is disposed of as above.