Q: I am an employee of the Government of West Bengal. I was falsely implicated in a misappropriation case and had to surrender before the court. I am presently out on bail. The office authorities have suspended me from service since I was in jail for more than 48 hours. The criminal case against me has not yet started and it is not even clear when it will be finalised. I have appealed before the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) for withdrawing my suspension order pending finalisation of the criminal case. The tribunal passed an order directing my employer to review the order within three months. My questions are — can the department keep me under suspension indefinitely? Or are they liable to withdraw the suspension in view of the SAT order? In case the department does not review the order, can I file a case in the high court instead of taking recourse to SAT again?
Name withheld
A:State Administrative Tribunals, established under the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985, exercise the jurisdiction powers exercisable by all courts (except the Supreme Court) in relation to recruitment and other service matters concerning persons appointed to any civil service or civil post under the state. The tribunals have been set up to substitute the court and not merely to supplement it, and as such, exclude the jurisdiction of the courts in these matters. You have correctly approached the tribunal for redress of your grievances, as a writ petition before the High Court would not be maintainable.
The tribunal has directed your employer to review the order of suspension and such order is binding on your employer. A violation of the said order is punishable by law. Section 17 of the said Act provides that “a tribunal shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction powers in respect of contempt of itself as a High Court has and may exercise and that the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act 1971 (subject to minor modifications) shall be applicable to these tribunals.” Thus, if they do not comply — you have an adequate remedy before the tribunal itself and need not approach the court.
The scope of judicial review of such suspension orders is limited since these essentially relate to administrative functions and running of the concerned department. It is true that the government can suspend a public servant pending departmental enquiry or criminal proceedings against him, but this does not mean that the government can prolong such suspension indefinitely. A suspension order cannot continue in cases where there is inordinate delay in initiating or concluding the enquiry.
In cases where there is no nexus between the criminal charges and the functioning of the employee, it is meaningless to suspend him. Further, the service rules itself may provide for the duration, conditions and revocation of suspension. In one case, there was a provision that if the person is on bail, suspension on account of arrest may be revoked. The law will readily interfere in orders where it can be shown that the suspension order smacks of mala fide intention on the part of the employer.
Suspending a government servant not only affects his livelihood and reputation, but also hampers the proper functioning of the department. Thus, orders of suspension are liable to be reviewed periodically and ought to be continued only after assessing the expediency and the necessity. If such decisions are not taken within a reasonable time, it would tantamount to arbitrary power being vested in the employer to victimise employees for an indefinite duration by adopting delaying tactics.
Send your letters to Inlaw at The Telegraph,
Jobs Desk, 6 Prafulla Sarkar Street,
Calcutta 700001;
or fax at 225 3142;
or send e-mails to jobs@abpmail.com.
