ORDER

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:

“i.

To quash the orders of suspension of applicant with direction to non-applicants to reinstate the applicant and pay all the outstanding service benefit after reinstatement and per service rules.”

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that vide Order No.LM/JCJ-02 of 2017 dated 28.06.2017, passed by Joint Controller Department the applicant was placed under suspension with immediate effect, till pending enquiry. The applicant was directed to report to the office of Dy. Controller SS Lab/Taximeter/Tank Lorries Jammu and he remained attached in the office of Dy. Controller Jammu till 2019 when he was directed to report to his original place of posting i.e. Samba. The applicant is being paid suspension allowance @75% of his salary.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that a period of about seven years has elapsed but uptil now neither any charge memo has been issued nor the order of applicant’s suspension has been reviewed by the respondents.

4. Learned counsel still further submitted that in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Anr (2015) 7 SCC 291, it has been held that the currency of the suspension order should not extend :: 3 :: O.A. No. 61/190/2024 beyond three months, if within this period, charge sheet is not served, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of suspension, He further submitted that suspension, if it continues for an indeterminable period, becomes punitive in nature.

5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.

6. In this case, the applicant was suspended in the year 2017, however, till date the respondents have neither issued any charge sheet nor reviewed the suspension. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) has clearly laid down that an order of suspension cannot be continued after expiry of 90 days when a memorandum of charges/charge sheet has not been served on the suspended employee. The instant case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra). The operative portion of the aforesaid judgment is as follows:

"14. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Charge sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee;

if the Memorandum of Charges/Charge sheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the concerned person to any Department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he :: 4 :: O.A. No. 61/190/2024 may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him.

The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time limits to their duration.

However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice.

Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us."

7. Keeping in view the facts of the case as well the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the Resp