Regular List Sr. No. 14 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CM No. 2618/2025 Bharat Bhushan …..Petitioner(s)

Through: Ms. Himani Khajuria, Advocate.

Vs UT of J&K & Ors. .…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with Ms. Nisha Kangotra, Advocate Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA.

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

ORDER

27.02.2026

01. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents had sought time to respond to the contention raised by the petitioner that once he has superannuated from service, the respondents cannot proceed with the departmental enquiry against him.

02. Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the settled legal position that once an employee ceases to be in service upon his superannuation, the departmental proceedings cannot go ahead against him.

03. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has challenged order dated 15.01.2025 whereby he was placed under suspension. He has also challenged the departmental enquiry initiated against him pursuant to the suspension order dated 15.01.2025 as also the memorandum of charges dated 17.04.2025 with a further direction that the petitioner should be reinstated as Khilafwarzi Inspector.

04. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has superannuated from service on 31.12.2025. It is also not in dispute that the departmental proceedings have not been concluded against the petitioner as yet. Minutes of proceedings would reveal that the departmental enquiry was not stayed by this Court and only notice was issued in the petition filed by the petitioner. Therefore, it is not a case where departmental enquiry could not be concluded on account of reasons attributable to the petitioner.

05. It is a settled law that once an employee retires, he ceases to be an employee of the Government or the authority with whom he was serving and the relationship of employee and employer comes to an end. Thus, the employer cannot continue departmental proceedings against the retired employee with a view to impose punishment upon him. However, Article 168-A of the J&K CSR gives liberty to an employer to continue the departmental enquiry against a delinquent employee post his retirement for the limited purpose of recovery of loss caused to the Government by the negligence or fraudulent act of the delinquent employee.

06. In the present case, a perusal of articles of charges framed against the petitioner would show that the same relate to improper maintenance of registers and dereliction in duty which resulted in raising of unauthorized construction and illegal conversion of agriculture land. Memo of charges framed against the petitioner does not pertain to monetary loss to the respondents. Thus, impugned enquiry proceedings cannot be continued, as the provisions of Article 168-A J&K CSR are not attracted to the present case.

07. For what has been discussed above, the impugned order of suspension and the enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner are quashed. The respondents are directed to settle the terminal benefits of the petitioner in accordance with the law.

08. The petition stands disposed of, accordingly.

(SANJAY DHAR)

JUDGE Jammu

27.02.2026 Shivalee Shivalee Khajuria 2026.03.02 18.08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Jammu