Rajesh Bindal, J.—The petitioner has filed the present petition with a prayer for quashing of suspension order allegedly issued in May, 1977, with a further prayer to grant him all consequential benefits by treating the order of suspension as non-est.

2. Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had joined service in the year 1970 and was discharging his duties honestly. While he was working as Nazir at Sonawari, District Baramulla in May, 1977, he was falsely involved in a criminal case, on the basis of which FIR No.37 of 1977 was registered against him at Police Station Sumbal on 24.04.1977, under Sections 409/467 Ranbir Penal code. It was alleged that the petitioner had embezzled an amount of Rs. 15,608/-. The petitioner was pressurized to deposit the amount which he refused being not involved in embezzlement. However, the money was deposited by A.G Mir the then Tehsildar (now deceased) in the name of the petitioner, getting his signature forcibly. Immediately the petitioner was suspended. Initially he was paid 50% as subsistence allowance which was enhanced to 75% but after migration it was reduced to 50%. Challan in the FIR was presented in the year 1986, which was not complete and the matter remained pending. Subsequently it was transferred to Jammu, however, despite repeated opportunities, complete and bifurcated Challan was not presented. As a result of which vide order dated 05.12.1997, the Challan already filed was consigned to record with liberty to the APP to get the matter revived in case fresh Challan is filed. Nothing was done by the State thereafter and the petitioner continued to suffer. Neither the petitioner was prosecuted nor any departmental proceedings were initiated against him, however, still he remained under suspension from February, 1977 till the date of his retirement in May, 2002.

3. It was further submitted that number of communications were sent by the department, where the petitioner was working, to the Public Prosecutor for return of record, however, the same was not done. Even legal notice got issued by the petitioner did not yield any result. Copy of the suspension order was never supplied. Referring to the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1956 Rules”) and the Government instructions issued vide Notification dated September 26, 1978, it was submitted that the suspension of an employee was required to be reviewed periodically after three months. In the case of the petitioner nothing was done. In support of his arguments, reliance was placed on judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India through its Secretary and another, AIR 2015 SC 2389.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the record of the case is not traceable for the reason that two more districts, namely, Kupwara and Bandipora, were carved out of the district where the petitioner was earlier working. The suspension order may have been passed once the petitioner is claiming that he was only getting the suspension allowance. In fact, the petitioner had taken the calculated risk while not approaching any authority to seek even copy of the suspension order. The Writ Petition was filed when he was nearing retirement, claiming that his suspension is wrong and he deserves to be reinstated back in service. He in fact wanted to enjoy the fruits without working. Even if there is a duty cast on the authority to review the suspension periodically but still in case there was any inaction, the petitioner was required to point out the same and raise the issue before the competent authority or approach the Court within some reasonable time.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition. No objections have been filed despite repeated opportunities.

6. The case in hand is a glaring example of inaction on the part of various