‘Promptness needed in cases involving grave charges’
* Dismisses petition, upholds CAT order revoking suspension
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Sept 6: Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh comprising of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal has held that prolonged suspension of Government official amounts to punishment as it has very strong stigmatic social connotations.
Accordingly, the DB has dismissed the petition of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) whereby the suspension of a Government servant was revoked.
A Government servant Hilal Ahmed Rather was placed under suspension by virtue of Government Order No. 200-Home of 2018 dated 07.02.2018. As per the prescribed procedure, the order of suspension was required to be followed by a memorandum of charge/charge sheet and in case any inquiry is required to be conducted, the needful had to be done expeditiously.
However, no charge sheet was served upon him even after the lapse of four years as such the suspended official approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench with the plea for setting aside the impugned Government order.
The Tribunal gave sufficient time to the respondents but no response was filed and keeping in view the urgency involved in the petition as the applicant was due to retire on April 30, 2022, the case was taken up by the Tribunal and, accordingly, after appreciating all the material facts on record and relying upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court, the CAT quashed the order bearing No. 200-Home 2018 dated 07.02.2018 and also held the applicant entitled for consequential dues as per the rules.
Feeling aggrieved of the order passed by the Tribunal, the Government filed writ petition before the High Court on the ground that there are serious allegations against the applicant having implication of threat on the security of the State/UT.
While placing reliance on judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts, Additional Advocate General Asifa Padroo argued that the Tribunal instead of quashing of the order of suspension could have directed to conclude the inquiry. She further argued that the Tribunal could have directed the Government to review the suspension instead of quashing the order.
Senior counsel Jahangir Iqbal Ganai appearing for Hilal Ahmed Rather vehemently argued that the order passed by the Tribunal is legal, justified in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as no inquiry whatsoever has been initiated for more than 4 years and as a consequence of which the order of suspension cannot sustain the test of law.
“What to talk of initiating inquiry, even, no charge sheet, has been served to the applicant despite efflux of more than 4 years from the date the applicant was placed under suspension”, he further said, adding “the suspension cannot be continued after expiry of 90 days when a memorandum of charge/charge sheet has not been served on the suspended employee”.
After hearing both the sides, the Division Bench observed, “the law is settled at naught by the Supreme Court in various authoritative pronouncements that although, suspension is not a punishment but once, a suspension is prolonged for more than 4 years, then it amounts to punishment, as it has very strong stigmatic social connotations”.
“On the one hand, the respondents have vehemently pleaded that there are very serious charges against the applicant (respondent before the DB) and on the other hand, the respondents have failed to discharge their obligations to proceed in accordance with law by issuing charge sheet and conducting inquiry after placing the applicant under suspension for more than 4 years”, the DB said, adding “no plausible reasons have been explained for such delay for not framing the charge sheet, even after a lapse of more than 4 years”.
“Since, as per the stand of the respondents, there were grave charges against the applicant then in that eventuality, the respondents could have acted with promptitude by issuing charge sheet by holding an inquiry within a stipulated time period, but the respondents by their own conduct have waived of their right either to charge sheet against the delinquent employee or conducting any inquiry”, read the judgment authored by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal.
“The inquiry was required to be completed within 15 days, which itself proves beyond any shadow doubt that the State was conscious of the seriousness and urgency involved in the matter, yet they slept over the matter for four long years to initiate inquiry by way of issuing charge sheet to the delinquent”, the DB said, adding “by keeping the employee under suspension for four long years, the applicant has been put to lot of stress and temporary deprivation of his full wages over this period, and such inaction on part of the respondents indicate a total lack of seriousness in dealing with the matter”.
Accordingly, DB upheld the order passed by the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition.
Follow our WhatsApp channel