Suspension by election authority valid for dereliction despite additional duties; no prior hearing required under CCA Rule 31.

ORDER 

Per Hon’ble Mr. M.S.Latif, Member (Judl.) :-

The applicant challenges the order impugned bearing no. CEO/Estt./2024/191 dated 05.04.2024, the same being illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction and also not in accordance with the mandate of Rule 31 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1956.

2. The case of the applicant, as projected by him in the instant OA, is that he was appointed as Patwari by the competent authority in the year 2014 pursuant to a valid selection process. The applicant vide order no. 65-DCS of 2022 dated 07.03.2022 came to be transferred/posted as Patwari Halqa Chatterhama, Tehsil North Srinagar. He was also directed to hold additional charge of Patwar Halqa Khimber till further orders. It has been averred in the application that vide order no. CEO dated 10.01.2024 the applicant was attached/given additional work related to election and in terms of the aforesaid order the applicant was directed to perform election related assignments in addition to his own duties.

3. The applicant has been placed under suspension in view of instances of laxity/casual approach as the overall progress of roll related work is very poor in comparison to Jammu which fact has also been endorsed by the Naib Tehsildar through his written letter. It is also for the reason that the applicant does not attend office on Monday-Thursday as the applicant claims to be busy in Public Darbar- block days. The order impugned reveals that it is noticeable fact that there was no such Block days since last three weeks i.e. from the date the schedule of election was announced and keeping in view the casual approach of the applicant, he was placed under suspension with immediate effect for his dereliction/negligence of election related works assigned to him. During the said period of suspension the official has been ordered to remain attached in the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Jammu & Kashmir, Srinagar.

4. The applicant has primarily challenged the order impugned on the grounds as mentioned in the OA which read as under:-

“5.1 That the impugned order of suspension is per se violative of the mandate of Rule 31 of Classification Control and Appeal Rules of 1956, and is as well suffering from want of jurisdiction. Admittedly, the applicant has been assigned additional work with election related assignments and as such the applicant continues to be under the Administrative Control of his primary employer that is Financial Commissioner (Revenue). Taking up of additional assignment would in law not confer any power upon the non-applicant no.1, to place the applicant under suspension, inasmuch as the power to suspend remains with the Appointing Authority of the applicant. On this count, the order impugned is suffering from want of jurisdiction and as such liable to be quashed.

5.2 That the applicant pursuant to the circular dated 11.08.2017, is duty bound to remain available at his primary place of posting that is Patwari Halqa Chattarhama, with additional charge of Patwar Halqa Khimber, on every Monday and every Thursday and any dereliction of the afore-stated circular would entail disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. The circular has been issued by the Competent Authority viz. Financial Commissioner and the applicant being under his control, is statutorily required to abide by and follow the circular in letter and spirit. The primary reason outlined in the impugned order of suspension is that the appli