ORDER (ORAL)

PER M.S. Latif, Member(J)

1. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter is taken up for its final disposal. The instant Writ Petition having been initially filed before the Hon’ble High Court of J&K way back in the year 2020. On transfer of the instant petition to this Tribunal vide order dated 11.09.2020, the matter came up for hearing on various occasions. None has ever appeared for the petitioner. However, Mr. Mir, learned counsel representing the petitioner has caused his appearance today. Despite ample opportunities, the counter has not been filed by the respondents.

2. Through the medium of the instant T.A. the petitioner has assailed an Order of Suspension bearing No. ZEOT/3977 dated 31.05.2017, issued by the Zonal Education Officer, Tangdar. The order impugned seems to have been passed in the year 2017 and the same having been challenged by the petitioner in the year 2020.

3. The main thrust of the petitioner, while assailing the order impugned is that the Zonal Education Officer is not the Competent Authority to place the petitioner under suspension, who otherwise holds the post of Class IV^th (Peon).

4. Perusal of the order impugned reveals that the order has been passed in the year 2017 and it is more than six years, as stated by the petitioner, neither the suspension case of the petitioner has been settled nor has been reviewed by the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Rule 31 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and the Government Instructions, as laid down in the Rule 31 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is more than six years, neither any inquiry, as was required, has been initiated against the petitioner, nor the case of the petitioner has been reviewed.

7. In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during all these six years, neither the respondents have initiated any inquiry nor served any chargesheet, as was required in terms of the law.

8. It is true that the suspension is not a punishment and the Competent Authority is competent within its power to place a person under suspension, however, in terms of the law and rules. But, prolonged suspension amounts to punishment. The basic purpose for placing an officer under suspension is to keep him away from the routine official contact, so that the delinquent does not influence or win upon any witnesses.

9. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the prolonged period of suspension, the order impugned automatically gets vitiated.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a celebrated judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union Of India and has also referred, law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of J&K titled as Askar Hussain Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

12. At the request, the petition is accordingly disposed of, by providing that the respondents will review the suspension case of the petitioner, if not already reviewed and pass appropriate order within a period of four weeks’ from the date on which a certified copy of the order is served upon the respondents.

13. The instant T.A./2815/2021 is accordingly disposed of.

(M.S. Latif) Member (J)

/Shubham/