Dear Raj Kumar,
I would like to differ with your opinion insofar as the terms "suspension as punishment" and "awarded for minor misconducts" are concerned.
In fact, suspension is neither treated as a punishment, nor is it awarded for minor misconduct. Suspension is not resorted to unless there is a valid reason that the employee has committed a serious misconduct that is considered worth the award of a major penalty and requires the issuance of a Charge Sheet for the purpose of a full-fledged departmental inquiry to justify some major penalty. Suspension is resorted to when the employee is expected to manipulate the inquiry, tamper with records, or is likely to destroy the evidence against him if he is allowed to work in his position. If no charge sheet is issued, the suspension is treated as invalid and will have to be considered as duty for all purposes.
As such, an employee can be placed under suspension:
(a) when a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated or pending against him;
(b) where, in the position of authority competent to suspend, he has engaged in activities prejudicial to the interest of security of the state/organization; or
(c) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offense is under investigation, inquiry, or trial.
As held in Mohd. Azam v. State of A.P., AIR 1956 A.P. 619, "Suspension" has been defined as the temporary deprivation of one's office or position.
Further, as held in Mohd. Ghouse v. State of A.P., AIR 1957 SC 246: 1957 SCR 414 and Kem Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 687: (1963) Sup. I. SCR 229, "Suspension" pending a departmental or judicial proceeding against an employee is NOT A PENALTY.
As held in Abullais Khan v. State of West Bengal, GB CB (1986)II p.44; (19862 ATR 97: SLJ (19862 CAT 134, suspension is not justified when there is no risk of tampering with documents.
As held in Balwantray Patel v. State of M.P., AIR 1968 SC 800: (1968) SCR 577, "The general law on the subject of suspension has been laid down in three cases viz., the management of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi v. Hotel Workers' Union (1960) SCR 476; T. Caje v. U. Jormanik Siem (1961) SCR 750 and R.P. Kapoor v. Union of India (1964)5 SCR 431, it is now well settled that the power to suspend, in the sense of the right to forbid a servant to work, is not an implied term in an ordinary contract between master and servant, and that such a power can only be created by either a statute governing the contract or an express term in the contract itself. Ordinarily, therefore, the absence of power either as an express term in the contract or in the rules framed under some statute would mean that the master would have no power to suspend a workman and even if he does so in the sense that he forbids the employee to work, HE SHALL HAVE TO PAY WAGES DURING THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION.
PS Dhingra
Management & Vigilance Consultant
Dhingra Group of Consultants
New Delhi
09968076381
dcgroup1962@gmail.com
Raj Kumar Hansdah said:
Dear prashant1314,
I am happy to note that you understand, as evident in your post, the difference between "suspension pending inquiry" and "suspension as punishment."
Suspension as punishment is generally awarded for minor misconducts, which are minor infractions and do not involve any moral turpitude or any severe misconduct, such as habitual late coming, unauthorized absence, etc.
Although I do not have any factual data across industries, generally, it ranges from two days to a maximum of a week.
Warm regards.