The main legal point established in the judgment is that a government servant facing allegations of corruption/fraud/misappropriation while discharging official duties can be placed under suspension to preserve the purity in the administration, as per Rule 31(1) of the J&K CCA Rules, 1956, and the seriousness of corruption in public service.

N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, C.J.:-

1. By consent the writ petition was posted before the Division Bench and is heard.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to quash the order of suspension dated 02.06.2014 and for direction to continue in service as Senior Assistant in the office of respondent No. 4 or in the alternative all other persons who were working on the posts of Executive Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer and Junior Engineer etc. be also placed under suspension and everyone be treated alike before law in terms of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. Insofar as the alternate prayer made by the writ petitioner is concerned, Mr. Jehangir Iqbal Ganai, the learned Advocate General, has submitted that after investigation of the case registered in FIR 91 of 2014 under Sections 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sections 409/467/468, 120-B RPC on the file of Police Station Handwara, the Executive Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer and the Junior Engineer have also been placed under suspension after they were arrested. It is stated that the investigation of the case is in progress. It is also stated that the writ petitioner was arrested on 18.03.2015 and he was granted bail on 03.04.2015.

4. Insofar as the first prayer of the writ petitioner seeking to quash the order of suspension is concerned, while the writ petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in the office of the Executive Engineer, PHE Division Handwara during the year 2013-2014, a Committee was constituted to probe into the execution of works and submission of utilization of material pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in PIL No. 16/2014. In the said PIL, this Court, noticing registration of FIR No. 91/2014, directed the SSP Crime Branch Kashmir to expedite the investigation and the said investigation is stated to be in progress. During the contemplation of the investigation and enquiry the writ petitioner was placed under suspension. The said order has been challenged and an interim order was granted by this Court.

5. Respondents have stated that the writ petitioner is the main architect of the fraud and embezzlement and during the course of investigation he was arrested and he is now facing the criminal action. The alleged discrimination pleaded by the writ petitioner is also not available as other persons were also suspended as stated supra.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the writ petitioner is not responsible for any fraud or embezzlement and the suspension order issued against him be quashed or at least the respondents may be directed to review the order of suspension under Rule 31 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956.

7. The learned Advocate General submitted that the writ petitioner is involved in fraud and embezzlement of government money and he has been suspended pending investigation/contemplation of enquiry and there is no illegality in the order of suspension.

8. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the order impugned.

9. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner is accused of fraud and embezzlement of the government money and he is also one of the accused in FIR 91/2014. He was arrested on 18.03.2015 and remanded to judicial custody and came out only after bail which was granted 03.04.2015. In such circumstances the petitioner cannot contend that there is no justification in placing him under suspension pending contemplation of enquiry. It is the contention of the respondents that the investigation conducted so far has revealed that an amount of Rs. 86,00,900/-plus Rs. 62,95,053/- has been found drawn fraudulently/dishonestly by abuse of official position by the public servants and later misappropriated. A further sum of Rs. 20,34,623/- drawn on account of non-existent works has also been misappropriated. Thus the writ petitioner is facing a very serious allegation of fraud and misa