An employee against whom certain charges have been made may be suspended pending an enquiry

without being heard. Usually courts draw a distinction between suspension as a punishment
( e.g.when a lawyer is suspended from practice for 6 months as a disciplinary matter) and suspension
as a ‘holding operation’ pending inquiry. Natural justice is applicable in the former case but not in the
latter case.

Radhey Shyam v. State of Rajasthan

Suspension of a person from office does not require observance of natural justice by the authority

concerned.

Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar v. State of Punjab

As to the suspension of a licence, the matter is not regarded as quasi-judicial. Thus, the power to
suspend a licence to carry on trade in foodgrains for a limited period of 90 days as a prelude to taking
proceedings to cancelling the licence was held to be an administrative, and not a quasi-judicial, matter

on the ground that it was only an interim measure pending further inquiry into the matter.

Furnell v. Whangarei High SChools Board, (1973) AC 660

Here was involved the disciplinary code for New Zealand government teachers. Charges against a
school teacher were investigated by a sub-committee which reported to the high school board. Neither
the sub-committee nor the board gave the school teacher an opportunity of making representations
but he was suspended from teaching without pay pending consideration and decision by the teachers'
disciplinary board into the charges of misconduct against him. By a majority, the Privy Council refused
to apply natural justice to him, because the procedure provided for in the relevant code of regulations
was a complete and fair procedure which the court was not entitled to redraft. The procedure laid
down in the regulations was not unfair. The suspended teacher would get later full opportunity to
meet the charges against him. So, while suspension may cause hardship to the teacher, it does not
constitute a final decision regarding the charges against him.

State of U.P. v. T.P. Lal Srivastava,

Charge-sheet was served and explanation to the charges of misappropriation was called for but the
delinquent employee did not respond despite several letters. Consequently, he was treated to be
guilty and was dismissed from service which was challenged in High Court which set aside the
dismissal order holding that the employee was not supplied with documents, therefore the action was
vitiated by error of law. The Apex Court held that the High Court was not justified in taking that view.
It observed that the Govt. had conducted no inquiry which the Govt. should do ex parte as the
employee was not responding. The disciplinary authority after taking the inquiry report into
consideration, in case of charge having been proved, should call upon him to explain why the
proposed action be not taken against him and, if he submits any explanation the same should be
taken into consideration and appropriate order be passed accordingly and till then he must be deemed

to be under suspension. 96

In Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Babulal, 97 the services of two senior employees were terminated
on the charge of dereliction duty under certain rule which stood annulled by a decision of the Supreme
Court. The Apex Court directed that a time bound inquiry be conducted and an opportunity be given to
them before taking any disciplinary action against them and till then they be directed to be deemed to
be under suspension.
The short-firer did not know what the contents of the inspector's report were and the board gave no
notice to the short-firer calling upon him to file his representation against the action proposed to be

taken against him. He filed a statement of his own accord. 26 Thus, there could be no meaningful
hearing in these circumstances. The better procedure would have been for the board to serve a show
cause notice to him based on the inspector's report. The whole procedure was short-circuited by the
Court, the justification for this approach being that the job of the short-firer was a hazardous one on
which depended the life of the mine-workers. But this did not justify any undue dilution of the rigours
of natural justice in the instant case. There was power to suspend his licence and, thus, the short-firer
was already immobilised pending a final decision. Such a step, viz., suspension of his license, had
already been taken. The decision to cancel his licence ought to have been taken only after the Board
giving him an adequate opportunity to defend himself as the consequences of such a decision were
very serious to him. The phraseology of the statutory provision itself envisaged an enquiry by the
board itself independently of the inquiry by the inspector. There is public interest not only in justice
being done but also seen to be done. After suspension of the licence there was no emergency to take

an immediate action and dilute the rigours of natural justice unduly in the process.
The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that
there has been a breach of principles of natural justice or procedure required for decision has not been
adopted. M/s K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Madras, AIR (1966) SC 1089

The Hon’ble SC in the case of Satwati Deswal Versus State Of Haryana (2010 (1) SCC 126, while dealing
with a Service matter, in paras 5 and 6, inter alia, observed as
In our view, the High Court had fallen in grave error in rejecting the writ petition on the aforesaid ground.
First, such an order of termination was passed without issuing any show cause notice to the appellant and
without initiating any disciplinary proceedings by the authorities and without affording any opportunity of
hearing. It is well settled that a Writ petition can be held to be maintainable even if an alternative remedy
available to an aggrieved party where the court or the tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction or for enforcement of
a fundamental right; or if there had been a violation of a principle of natural justice; or where vires of the act
were in question.

M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd Versus Jahan Khan (2007 (10) SCC 88
In an appropriate case, in spite of the availability of an alternative remedy, a writ court may still exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review, in at least three contingencies, namely,

(i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights;
(ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or
(iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is
challenged. In these circumstances, an alternative remedy does not operate as a bar.

Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC. 108
It is a settled canon of law that the High Court would not normally interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India where statutory alternative remedy is available. It is equally settled that
this canon of law is not free of exceptions. The courts, including this Court, have taken the view that the
statutory remedy, if provided under a specific law, would impliedly oust the jurisdiction of the civil courts. The
High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can
entertain writ or appropriate proceedings despite availability of an alternative remedy. This jurisdiction, the
High Court would exercise with some circumspection in exceptional cases, particularly, where the cases
involve a pure question of law or vires of an Act are challenged. This class of cases we are mentioning by way
of illustration and should not be understood to be an exhaustive exposition of law which, in our opinion, is
neither practical nor possible to state with precision. The availability of alternative statutory or other remedy
by itself may not operate as an absolute bar for exercise of jurisdiction by the courts. It will normally depend
upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. The further question that would inevitably come up for
consideration before the Court even in such cases would be as to what extent the jurisdiction has to be
exercised.