Itlaq Ahmed vs UT Of Jammu & Kashmir Through Its Financial Commissioner (Additional Chief Secretary), Department Of Forest, Ecology & Environment & Ors.

Per:- Sanjeev Gupta, Judicial Member

Applicant, who is a Chowkidar, in the respondent department, is aggrieved of impugned order dated 01.07.2010, passed by Respondent No. 3, whereby he was put under suspension. The applicant has challenged the suspension order mainly on the ground that till date, no departmental inquiry has been conducted against him, by serving Articles of Charges and Statement of Imputation of misconduct and a Government servant cannot be put under suspension for an indefinite period of time.

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the suspension order dated 01.07.2010 shows, that in view of arrest of applicant by Vigilance Organization for taking bribe, he has been placed under suspension and pending inquiry, he will remain attached in Range Office, Kishtwar. According to learned counsel, in FIR No. 18 of 2010, challan dated 11.03.2011 had been presented before the Anti-Corruption Court, Doda and the case is still pending trial.

The applicant in this Original Application (in short O.A.) has sought the following reliefs:-

In the counter affidavit dated 21.05.2025 filed by the respondents, it has been stated that the office of Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Organization, Udhampur Doda Range (UDR) vide letter No. SP/UDR/10/173/VOJ dated 02.07.2010 intimated the Divisional Forest Officer, Kishtwar that the applicant who was posted as Beat Guard Patnazi was arrested in case FIR No. 18/2010 by Police Station, Vigilance Organization, Jammu at Thathri, Doda for demanding and accepting Rs. 15,000/- from one Sh. Zulfikar Ali, S/o Gh. Qadir Bhat, R/o Patnazi Kishtwar for sanction of timber for construction of residential house of Sh. Mushtaq Ahmed, brother in law of the complainant. Subsequently, the applicant was placed under suspension vide impugned order dated 01.07.2010 on the basis of his arrest in case FIR No. 18/2010 dated 30.06.2010 at Police Station Vigilance Organization, Jammu. It is further stated that vide letter dated 17.04.2025, the respondents have taken up the matter with the Superintendent of Police Vigilance Organization, UDR, Jammu with the request to provide the latest status of the FIR No. 18/2010 lodged against the applicant, however, no response has been received from Vigilance Organization. It has also been stated that the department has not initiated inquiry against the applicant as the matter is sub-judice in the Vigilance Organization UDR, Jammu.

In the subsequent reply filed by the respondents in terms of order dated 28.07.2025, it has been admitted that the applicant is under suspension since 01.07.2010 and no departmental inquiry has yet culminated and the criminal case is still pending, as per record available with them. However, an Enquiry Committee has been constituted to review the case arising from FIR No. 18/2010 and to make recommendations to higher authorities.

Heard and considered.

It appears from the record that after the suspension of the applicant on 01.07.2010, till date no disciplinary inquiry got conducted against the applicant, though as per order dated 08.11.2025 of Respondent No. 3, a four Member Committee headed by Range Officer has been constituted to examine the suspension case of the applicant and to submit the report in a time bound manner, however, in this regard, as on date, no steps have been taken by the said Committee. The respondents have also not taken any steps for periodical review of suspension of the applicant. There is no doubt that suspension is not a punishment, but if suspension is continued for quite a long period, it certainly amounts to punishment. It is always desirable that after suspension, inquiry shall be held as soon as possible, and in case it is prolonged without any rhyme or reason, it is tantamount to punishing an employee without any cause.

In the present case, suspension has been prolonged for more than sixteen years, without holding an inquiry or service of charge sheet, as required under the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 (in short CCA Rules). It could also be seen, as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against the applicant, as no steps have been taken for last more than one year to conduct the inquiry against the applicant, after order dated 08.11.2025 was issued.

In Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Anr (2015) 7 SCC 291, it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court, that the currency of suspension order should not extend beyond three months, if within this period, charge sheet is not served upon the delinquent employee and even, if a charge sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of suspension. Admittedly, no such steps have been taken by the respondents.

Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Nath Bali Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi (2015) 16 SCC 415, has observed that disciplinary proceeding against delinquent employee should be concluded within a period of six months. The respondents have not even abided by the said principle of law.

Thus, we find substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant that a Government servant cannot be put under suspension for indefinite period. Applicant was placed under suspension on 01.07.2010 and more than sixteen years have gone by since then. The disciplinary inquiry is not likely to be completed in near future as the Committee constituted for inquiry has not taken any steps, till date to initiate inquiry against the applicant.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this O.A. is allowed and the impugned suspension order dated 01.07.2010 is quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant immediately. The applicant would be entitled to consequential benefits under rules, as per his entitlement, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, by the respondents.

However, the disciplinary authority shall be at liberty to proceed with the disciplinary inquiry and conclude the same as early as possible, in accordance with law.

No orders as to costs.