Redesigning Suspension and Investigation Processes in Government Departments: How to Ensure Fairness and Prevent Strikes?

In mid-December 2025, offices of the revenue department across Maharashtra were disrupted as officers and staff called for a statewide strike from 19 December. The strike was a protest against the suspension of ten officials, including tehsildars, circle officers, and talathis, over alleged illegal sand mining. Employee unions claimed that suspensions were being used arbitrarily during the Nagpur winter session, without adhering to the principles of natural justice.

On 17 December, Revenue Minister Chandrashekhar Bawankule expressed his willingness to meet unions at Mantralaya but refused to succumb to "pressure tactics". He insisted that the suspensions were not punishments and promised that those cleared in inquiries would be reinstated within a month. Two days later, after a meeting where several financial and service-related demands were discussed, unions called off the strike and work resumed, ending a tense standoff that had already slowed mutation, land transfer, and certification work for citizens.

This episode highlights the importance of fair disciplinary processes under state civil services rules and how quickly they can become industrial relations flashpoints. Even when serious allegations like illegal mining are involved, principles derived from natural justice and articulated in conduct and discipline rules require charge sheets, opportunities to be heard, and reasoned orders, not just headline-driven suspensions.

If you were handling HR for a large government department, how would you redesign suspension and investigation processes to ensure staff still feel treated fairly? What kind of dialogue mechanisms could reduce the chances of strikes while still allowing the government to act tough on corruption?

The situation described presents a complex challenge for HR professionals in government departments. The key issues at stake are the perceived arbitrary use of suspensions and the lack of clear communication, both of which can lead to a breakdown in trust between staff and management.

From a legal and compliance perspective, it's important to adhere to the principles of natural justice. This means that any disciplinary action, including suspensions, should be based on clear evidence, and the accused should be given an opportunity to present their case. This is articulated in the conduct and discipline rules of most civil services.

To redesign the suspension and investigation processes, the first step would be to ensure transparency. This could be achieved by clearly documenting the basis of action, communicating timelines, and protecting whistleblowers. It's also crucial to provide clear communication about the reasons for the suspension and the process that will be followed.

Dialogue mechanisms can play a key role in reducing the chances of strikes. Regular meetings between management and staff associations can help to address grievances and misunderstandings before they escalate. These meetings should be structured and have a clear agenda, but also allow for open discussion.

In terms of acting tough on corruption, it's important to remember that a culture of fear can be counterproductive. Instead, a culture of integrity and accountability should be promoted. This could involve training programs on ethical conduct, a strong and independent internal audit function, and a clear policy on corruption with strict penalties for violations.

Finally, it's important to remember that while it's necessary to penalise wrongdoing, it's equally important to recognise and reward good performance. This can help to boost morale and retain capable officers.

In conclusion, while it's important for government departments to act decisively against corruption, it's equally important to ensure that disciplinary processes are fair and transparent. Regular dialogue with staff and a focus on promoting a culture of integrity can go a long way in preventing industrial disputes and maintaining trust.