Central Administrative Tribunal
ISHFAQ CHOWDHARY vs RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT on 16 October 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAMMU
Order Sheet
Item no.: 2
O.A./1455/2026 (JAMMU)
[ DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY ]
Court No.: 1
No of Adjournment:
Order Dated: 16/10/2026
ISHFAQ CHOWDHARY
Vs
RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
For Applicant(s) Advocate : Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Vishal Sharma For Respondent(s) Advocate : Mr. Sudesh Magotra, A.A.G.
Order of The Tribunal
(THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The applicant in this Original Application (in short O.A.) has challenged impugned order dated 25.09.2026, whereby Respondent No. 4 has been appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct departmental inquiry against the applicant on the same fact/allegations, as alleged against the applicant in a criminal case registered by Police Station, Sunderbani in case FIR No. 50/2025 for offence under Sections 8/21/22 of NDPS Act.
2. The applicant has also challenged impugned draft article of charges and statement of imputation served on the applicant vide memorandum dated 31.08.2026 on the ground that draft article of charges is a gist of FIR No. 50/2025 and statement of imputation is verbatim reproduction of FIR No. 50/2025 and statement of imputation is verbatim reproduction of FIR No. 50/2025.The applicant is also aggrieved of the suspension order dated 05.08.2025, whereby the applicant has been placed under suspension retrospectively from the date he was detained by Police Station, Sunderbani.
3. The grievance of the applicant, as projected by learned Sr. Counsel is that the applicant is facing trial, in a Court of law on same set of facts and allegations, which is a subject matter of the impugned charge sheet and continuation of departmental proceedings will cause prejudice to the applicant, who would be compelled to disclose his defence in the departmental proceedings and will also cause prejudice in his defence in the pending criminal trial. The learned Sr. Counsel has relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd and another (1999) SCC 679, to buttress his submissions, that simultaneously departmental proceedings cannot proceed, when the applicant is already facing trial on same set of allegations.
4. With these submissions, learned Sr. Counsel prays for staying the departmental proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 4 pursuant to order dated 25.09.2026.
5. Admit.
6. Issue notice to respondents. Mr. Sudesh Magotra, learned A.A.G. appears and accepts notices on behalf of the respondents.
7. Learned A.A.G. submitted that the applicant is a Government employee and while travelling in a car on 05.08.2025, being driven by one Arafat Ahmad, was found in possession of 6.43 gms of heroine, recovered from the backseat of the car, regarding which FIR No. 50/2025 under section 8/21/22 of NDPS Act was registered. The act of the applicant has brought disrepute to the Rural Development Department and the same would amount to misconduct, unbecoming of a Government Servant. It is further submitted that determination of veracity of the allegations with regard to possession of contraband by the criminal court or in departmental proceedings does not involve decision of a complicated question of law and fact. In support of his contentions, learned A.A.G. has relied on the judgement dated 14.11.2025 of Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in the case of Akhand Prakash Shahi Vs. Union of India and another in Writ Petition (c) No. 1876 of 2025 c/w Writ Petition (C) No. 3128 of 2023.
8. Having heard the learned Sr. Counsel for the applicant and learned A.A.G. for respondents, besides carefully going through the judgements cited at Bar, it is apparent that criminal case in which applicant is facing trial relates to possession of 6.43 grams of heroin which allegation though serious in nature, but does not involve complicated questions of law and fact to stay the departmental proceedings which cannot be unduly delayed, involving misconduct on the part of the applicant, who was found in possession of narcotic material.
9. In our opinion, no ground for grant of interim relief is made out in favour of the applicant for staying the departmental proceedings, as such, prayer for interim relief is rejected.
10. However, the respondents shall take steps to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
11. Learned A.A.G. to file detailed reply in the matter with advance copy to learned counsel for the applicant.
12. List on 08.12.2026. Pragya Sahay Saksena Member (A) Sanjeev Gupta Member (J) Arun Kumar ( )