Prolonged suspension without departmental inquiry constitutes punishment; suspension lapses upon retirement, but benefits may be withheld pending criminal cases.

HARSHIT Digitally signed ORDER Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The applicants have filed the present Original Applications under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -

a) “Set aside Order No.DSEJ/Legal/34558-60 dated 21.10.2021 passed by respondent No.2 whereby the case of the petitioner pursuant to direction passed by the Hon'ble High Court Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh (Jammu Wing) in SWP No.598/2017 titled Barkat Ali Dar V/s State of J&K & Ors for reinstatement was rejected.

b) Directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant with all the consequential benefits.

c) Or any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted to the applicant.”

2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows: -

a) The applicant is aggrieved of Order No. DSEJ/Legal/34558-60 dated 21.10.2021 passed by respondent No.2 whereby his claim for reinstatement, pursuant to directions of the Hon’ble High HARSHIT Digitally signed Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh (Jammu Wing) in SWP No.598/2017 titled Barkat Ali Dar vs. State of J&K & Ors., was rejected. The impugned order dated 21.10.2021 is enclosed as Annexure-A1.

b) The applicant was serving as a Laboratory Assistant when he was implicated in FIR No.65/2011 registered at Police Station Banihal under Sections 10/17/18/19/20/21/40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. As he remained in custody for more than 24 hours, he was treated as ‘Deemed Suspended’ vide Order No. DSEJ/GN/3486 dated 25.05.2011 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure-A2).

c) The applicant was granted bail by the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir (Jammu Wing) vide order dated 18.10.2011 (Annexure-A3). Despite his release on bail, the respondents failed to review his case as mandated under Rule 31 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1956, which requires periodic review of suspension to minimize its duration. The applicant remained under suspension continuously for six years without review, compelling him to HARSHIT Digitally signed file SWP No.598/2017 before the Hon’ble High Court seeking quashing of the suspension and reinstatement.

d) The applicant sought a writ of certiorari to quash the suspension order dated 25.05.2011, and writs of mandamus commanding reinstatement with arrears of pay and consequential benefits, relying upon the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. UOI & Ors., 2015 AIR (SC) 2389. The Hon’ble High Court, vide order dated 14.03.2017 (Annexure-A4), directed respondent No.2 to take a speaking decision regarding revocation of suspension, reinstatement, and release of due salary within two months.

e) Despite the said order, respondent No.2 failed to implement the directions, compelling the applicant to initiate contempt proceedings through CPSWP No.122/2017. A compliance report was filed on 23.10.2021 enclosing the order dated 21.10.2021, whereby the case of the applicant for reinstatement was rejected.

HARSHIT Digitally signed f) The rejection order dated 21.10.2021 is assailed by the applicant as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the settled law. It is submitted that the applicant has been kept under prolonged suspension for more than 10 years, which in itself amounts to punishment, despite no departmental enquiry being initiated against him and no charge-sheet being produced in FIR No.65/2011 even after more than a decade. The impugned order, therefore, is in violation of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary’s case (2015) and is liable to be set aside.

g) The applicant submits that due to prolonged suspension, he has suffered financial loss, deterioration of health, and is presently under medical treatment at the fa