Employee Cannot Be Kept Under Suspension Indefinitely: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Reinstatement of DSP After Three Years
Case Name: Lakhbir Singh v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 27 February 2026
Citation: CWP-30415-2024
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that an employee cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period, particularly when disciplinary proceedings are not being actively pursued. Prolonged suspension without appointment of an Inquiry Officer and without progress in departmental proceedings is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India.
Summary: The petitioner, a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) posted in Faridkot, challenged the suspension order dated 22.07.2022 passed under Rule 4 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. He also sought reinstatement in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India.
The suspension stemmed from an investigation into an NDPS case where a person was arrested with 900 grams of opium. During investigation, allegations surfaced that the petitioner had demanded a bribe through intermediaries to protect the accused from legal action. The investigation allegedly led to recovery of ₹9.97 lakh from the residence of the petitioner’s relative and ₹1 lakh from the residence of a co-accused. The petitioner was thereafter arrested and placed under suspension.
Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and a memorandum of charges was served upon the petitioner. He was also implicated in another FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act and provisions of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of these allegations, the Home Department decided not to reinstate him.
The petitioner argued that the suspension had continued for an unreasonably long period. He pointed out that the investigating agency had completed the investigation and filed its report. During the course of proceedings, he agreed to become an approver in the criminal case and was declared a prosecution witness by the trial court. He therefore contended that the continued suspension without progress in departmental proceedings was arbitrary and contrary to settled law.
It was further submitted that although a charge-sheet had been served, the department had failed to appoint an Inquiry Officer or proceed with the disciplinary inquiry. As a result, the petitioner had remained under suspension for more than three years without any effective departmental action.
The State argued that under Rule 4(5) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, a suspension order remains effective until it is modified or revoked by the competent authority. It relied on a previous judgment of the High Court interpreting the rule to support the continuation of suspension.
The Court observed that although suspension orders may remain operative until revoked, the authorities are still required to ensure that disciplinary proceedings are conducted expeditiously. The Court noted that the petitioner had already been declared an approver in the criminal case and that the department had taken no substantial steps after issuing the charge memorandum.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that an employee cannot be kept under suspension indefinitely and that disciplinary proceedings must be conducted within a reasonable timeframe. The Court also emphasized that the respondents were duty-bound to appoint an Inquiry Officer and conclude the departmental proceedings at the earliest.
Given that the petitioner had remained under suspension for more than three years without meaningful progress in the disciplinary process, the Court held that continuation of suspension was unjustified.
Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the State authorities to reinstate the petitioner within two weeks.