The Rajasthan High Court has imposed the exemplary cost of Rs. 5 Lakh on the Union of India and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) for vindictive suspension of an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) Officer.
The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Anuroop Singhihas held that the repeated extension of an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer’s suspension was arbitrary, mala fide, and an abuse of power. While Setting aside the suspension extension orders, the Court directed the authorities to restore the officer’s promotional benefits, pay full salary for the extended suspension period, and award ₹5 lakh as exemplary costs for the hardship caused by the unlawful exercise of power.
The bench allowed the writ petition filed by an IRS (Customs and GST) officer challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal’s refusal to interfere with the extension of his suspension.
Buy Now: Supreme Court Judgments E-Magazine – 5 Month Combo (2026) (1st February – 30th June 2026)
The Court found that the suspension extensions had a direct impact on his career progression by preventing his promotion through the “sealed cover” procedure despite no departmental charge-sheet being issued at the relevant time.
Background of the Dispute
The petitioner, a 2012-batch Indian Revenue Service (Customs and GST) officer, was initially posted in Lucknow before being transferred to New Delhi. While residing in a government residential colony in Delhi, an altercation allegedly took place in September 2019 between his family members and another senior GST officer. Subsequent complaints were lodged by several residents of the government accommodation, leading to an inquiry, eviction proceedings, and eventually the petitioner’s transfer to Jodhpur.
The authorities later initiated disciplinary proceedings and placed the officer under suspension on May 4, 2021. Although the initial suspension lasted for 90 days, it was successively extended through orders dated July 16, 2021, and January 13, 2022. During this extended suspension, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) met in March 2022, but the petitioner’s promotion was withheld under the sealed cover procedure while his juniors were promoted.
The petitioner challenged only the extension orders, contending that there was no fresh material justifying continuation of his suspension and that the prolonged suspension was intended solely to deny him promotion.
Petitioner’s Case
The petitioner argued that no departmental charge-sheet had been issued before the expiry of the original 90-day suspension period. Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India and the Department of Personnel and Training’s Office Memorandum, he submitted that the continued suspension lacked legal justification.
He further contended that if the second extension had not been granted, he would have been eligible for promotion when the DPC met in March 2022 because no departmental proceedings were pending against him at that time. According to him, the extensions were issued with mala fide intent solely to deprive him of career advancement.
Government’s Defence
The respondents defended the suspension by pointing to allegations of misconduct, including repeated quarrels involving the petitioner and his family members, unauthorized absence from headquarters, failure to vacate government accommodation despite eviction proceedings, and complaints regarding rude behaviour towards senior officers, subordinate officers, and taxpayers.
According to the authorities, the Review Committee had sufficient material before it to justify continuation of the suspension, and therefore judicial interference was unwarranted.
High Court Finds Suspension Extensions Unjustified
After examining the entire record, the High Court noted that the petitioner’s professional career before the 2019 residential dispute was unblemished. The Bench recorded that he had represented India internationally, contributed to the National Trade Facilitation Action Plan, and received commendations for his work in customs and trade facilitation.
The Court observed that the principal allegations initially related only to the conduct of the petitioner’s family members during a dispute in the government residential complex and were unconnected with his official duties.
It further found that by the time the suspension was extended, the authorities already possessed all relevant material, including complaints, inquiry reports, and statements. Therefore, there was no legitimate necessity to continue the suspension merely for facilitating disciplinary proceedings.
Suspension Cannot Become Punishment
The Bench reiterated that suspension is an extraordinary measure intended to facilitate fair disciplinary proceedings and cannot be used routinely or as a punitive tool.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court observed that suspension should ordinarily be resorted to only where allegations are sufficiently grave to potentially warrant dismissal or removal from service. In the present case, the allegations were largely connected to a residential dispute and an allegation that the petitioner left headquarters during the COVID-19 period before formal leave approval—circumstances which the Court found insufficiently serious to justify prolonged suspension.
The Court held that even if the allegations were ultimately proved, they would not ordinarily justify the extreme penalty of dismissal or removal from service.
Promotion Denied Due to Arbitrary Extension
A crucial factor influencing the Court was that the second extension of suspension directly affected the petitioner’s promotion.
The Bench observed that when the Departmental Promotion Committee met on March 23, 2022, no departmental charge-sheet had yet been issued. Had the suspension not been extended, the petitioner would have been promoted alongside his juniors. Instead, the extended suspension resulted in his case being kept in a sealed cover, thereby causing serious prejudice to his service career.
Court Sees Abuse of Administrative Power
The High Court made strong observations regarding the manner in which the suspension power had been exercised.
It held that the extension orders reflected arbitrary exercise of administrative authority and appeared motivated by personal vendetta rather than genuine administrative necessity. The Court concluded that the continued suspension amounted to abuse of power, was vitiated by malice in law, and effectively converted suspension into a punishment without justification.
The Bench also observed that the Tribunal had erred in refusing to examine the legality of the suspension extensions merely because the suspension had subsequently been revoked. Since the extension orders had directly deprived the petitioner of promotional opportunities, they continued to have legal consequences requiring judicial scrutiny.
₹5 Lakh Exemplary Costs Awarded
Finding that the petitioner had suffered substantial mental agony and professional harm due to arbitrary administrative action, the Court invoked the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta regarding compensation for abuse of public power.
Holding that the petitioner had been subjected to undue hardship through arbitrary and capricious exercise of power, the Bench awarded ₹5 lakh as exemplary costs payable by the Union of India and the CBIC.
Conclusion
Allowing the writ petition, the Rajasthan High Court set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order.
The court quashed the suspension extension orders dated July 16, 2021 and January 13, 2022 and directed that the petitioner be treated as reinstated upon expiry of the original 90-day suspension period.
The court ordered payment of full salary for the extended suspension period after adjustment of subsistence allowance already paid.
The court directed the authorities to open the sealed cover, consider the petitioner for promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, and grant consequential notional benefits if found eligible.
The court awarded ₹5 lakh as exemplary costs payable within three months.Â
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
