Srinagar, July 31: In O.A./769/2026 (SRINAGAR) titled GHULAM RASOOL BHAT Vs REVENUE DEPARTMENT after hearing CAT ordered as under:-
1. Through the medium of the instant O.A., the applicant seeks the following reliefs:
1. By issuance of order or direction, the Order NO. DCK/N/Estt/2025/304-09 dated 26-06-2025 issued by Deputy Commissioner Kupwara .i.e Respondent No. 4 vide which the Petitioner was been placed under suspension with immediate effect be set-aside.
2. By issuance of order or direction, Respondents be directed to review the suspension of the applicant in accordance with the law in the light of the judgement titled "Ajay Kumar Chowhdary V/s Union of India through Secretary reported in (2015) 7 SSC 291 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court.
3. By issuance of order or direction, Respondents be directed to take decision on the representation filed by the Applicant with regard to conducting of review of suspension of the applicant.
4. Any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is serving as a Tehsildar, who has challenged the Order No. DCK/N/Estt/2025/304-09 dated 26.06.2025, whereby he was placed under suspension and attached to the office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Handwara, following the registration of FIR No. 04/2025 by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Baramulla.
The applicant was arrested in connection with the FIR and was subsequently released on bail on 07.07.2025.
3. It is stated that the applicant appraoched the respondents and sought release of susbsistence allowance, as such, the respondents sanctioned subsistence allowance at 50% of the basic pay.
4. It is averred that after remaining under suspensino for more than one year, the applicant filed a representation dated 29.06.2026 seeking enhancement of the allowance to 75% and review of the suspension. However, the same has not been considered.
5. It is contended that despite the lapse of more than one year, neither his suspension has been reviewed nor any departmental proceedings have been initiated or a charge-sheet served upon him.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the continued suspension without periodic review or disciplinary proceedings is contrary to the provisions of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.
He submits that the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking quashment of the suspension order, review of the suspension, enhancement of subsistence allowance, and consequential reliefs.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of Indian & Ors., 2015 (7) SCC 291, held that the Govt. Employee cannot be kept suspended for more than three months and it is incumbent upon the competent authority to expeditiously conduct an enquiry, and at the same time conduct periodical reviews of the suspension of the official.
8. Heard.
9. Issue notice upon the respondents. Mr. Rais ud din Ganaie, learned DAG, appears and accepts notice for the respondents, who is granted four weeks' time to file his detailed response.
In the meantime, it is ordered that shall conduct a review of the suspension of the applicant within the notice period.
It is expected that the competent authority will take note of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time mandating that the period of suspension should always be minimum.
10. List on 10.09.2026.
|