Rajasthan High Court imposes ₹5 lakh costs on Centre for wrongly suspending IRS officer over 'rude behaviour'

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur recently ordered the Central government and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to pay ₹5,00,000 in exemplary costs to an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer who was arbitrarily suspended from service. [Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia v. Union of India]

A Bench of Justices Munnuri Laxman and Anuroop Singhi quashed a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that upheld the suspension order against Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia, a Deputy Commissioner of Customs and GST.

The Court held that the allegations against the officer arising from a residential dispute involving his family members and certain COVID-era leave lapses amounted to a "gross exaggeration of trivial deviations" that could never justify the extreme step of prolonged suspension. It said,

"The extensions of suspension caused great mental agony and resulted destruction of his bright service carrier. The petitioner suffered deprivation of his promotional avenues. An incident between the families resulted in ruining the career of a highranking officer. This is a clear case of vendetta by higher officials."

The dispute traces back to a 2019 altercation at the officer's government accommodation in Delhi involving his mother and widowed sister, which led to complaints, an eviction notice and his transfer to Jodhpur.

Further complaints followed from officers residing in the same residential colony, along with allegations of unauthorised absence during the pandemic.

The officer was suspended in May 2021 and the suspension was extended twice, before being allowed to lapse and formally revoked in August 2022, after which a chargesheet was issued against him. The officer had approached the CAT challenging the extension orders, seeking his promotion and consequential benefits, but the Tribunal dismissed his plea, prompting the writ petition before the High Court.

The Court found that the principal allegations were either unconnected to the officer's official duties or attributable to family members rather than the officer himself. It held that neither charge, even if proved, would warrant dismissal or removal from service.

It noted that suspension is a drastic measure meant only for grave misconduct and that the disciplinary authority already possessed all relevant material at the time of the initial suspension itself, making the extensions unnecessary. The manner in which the allegations surfaced, the Court said in its order, prima facie demonstrated personal vendetta on the part of certain high-ranking officials against the officer.

The Bench directed that the officer be treated as reinstated from the expiry of his original 90-day suspension, with full salary for the extended period.

The petitioner appeared in person before the Court.

Advocate Rajvendra Saraswat, along with Advocates Jitesh Kumar Suthar and Rishab Dadhich, appeared for the respondents.

[Read Judgment]