Dr Imtiyaz Gul Khan vs HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT on 26 October 2026

ORDER

(Oral)

Per Hon’ble Mr. M.S. Latif, Member (Judl.)

Through the medium of the instant O.A., the applicant seeks

ABHISHEK PUNIA

the following reliefs:

a. Quash and set aside the continued suspension of the Applicant w.e.f. 14.02.2023 (Government Order No. 56- JK(HE) of 2023 dated 17.02.2023) and direct the Respondents to reinstate him to his substantive post of Assistant Professor (History), subject to such posting as the competent authority deems fit;

b. Direct the non-applicants to complete the disciplinary action initiated against the applicant and the enquiry report be made available to the applicant without any further delay.

c. Direct the Respondents to place the applicant from AGP Rs.6,000 to Rs.7,000 and other career-advancement benefits in accordance with rules, notwithstanding the suspension, to the extent permissible in law;

d. Direct that, upon revocation/reinstatement, the period of suspension and consequential benefits be regulated in accordance with the applicable rules and the final decision;

e. Pass any other order which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems just and proper.

2. What emerges from the pleadings made in the O.A. is that the applicant holds a Ph.D. in History and was appointed as Assistant Professor (History) in the Higher Education Department vide Government Order No. 377-HE of 2016 dated 15.12.2016. It is stated that the applicant's service record has remained

ABHISHEK PUNIA

unblemished, and his integrity, work and performance, and conduct were assessed as “High”, “Very Good” and “Satisfactory”, respectively, in the Integrity Certificate dated 03.06.2022.

3. It is further averred that the applicant was arrested on 14.02.2023 in connection with FIR No. 01/2023 registered at Police Station, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Baramulla. Consequently, vide Government Order No. 56-JK(HE) of 2023 dated 17.02.2023, he was deemed to have been placed under suspension w.e.f. 14.02.2023 under Rule 31 and attached with the Director Colleges.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations leveled against the applicant are false and unfounded. It is stated that the original complaint forming the basis of the FIR was against one Tariq Ahmad Aishe and another Assistant Professor, namely, Imtiyaz Ahmad Shah, and did not name the applicant. He further submits that during the course of investigation, Imtiyaz Ahmad Shah was dropped from the case without any stated reason, while the applicant was subsequently brought within its ambit. He submits that the applicant was not implicated in any trap case, no demand or acceptance of illegal

ABHISHEK PUNIA

gratification was attributed to him, and no money or other incriminating article was recovered from him.

5. It is contended in the O.A. that the challan in the criminal case was presented before the competent Court at Baramulla in August 2024 and that the proceedings are pending at the stage of prosecution evidence, with no witness having been examined so far. The applicant claims to have remained under suspension since 14.02.2023, drawing subsistence allowance, and states that during this period he has regularly attended the Directorate of Colleges, marked his biometric attendance and neither absented himself nor obstructed any proceedings.

6. It is averred that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir has issued instructions governing periodic review of suspension, including the General Administration Department instructions dated 17.11.2023. The Higher Education Department also constituted a Review Committee vide Government Order No. 329- JK(HE) of 2024 dated 10.06.2024. However, as stated, no order of review, extension or continuation of his suspension, along with reasons, was ever communicated to the applicant between the

ABHISHEK PUNIA

date of his suspension, i.e., 14.02.2023 and October 2026.

7. It is further submitted that the applicant submitted repeated representations dated 28.03.2024, 29.08.2025, 10.09.2025 and 13.10.2026, seeking consideration of his suspension case. He contends that his continued suspension for nearly four years, without an effective review or decision on his representations, is unjustified. It is further stated that, after nearly three years of suspension, the department issued Memorandum No. HED-ACCOJMU/47/2023-04 (7271731) dated 18.12.2025, initiating departmental proceedings under Rule 33 and directing him to submit his written statement of defence in response to the articles of charge and statement of imputations.

8. It is further averred that, vide communication dated 29.12.2025, the applicant was supplied with the aforesaid memorandum and the final investigation report issued by the Director, Anti-Corruption Bureau. As stated, the report also reflected that the original complaint named Imtiyaz Ahmad Shah rather than the applicant and did not disclose evidence against him sufficient to warrant his trial in the criminal case. The applicant

ABHISHEK PUNIA

thereafter submitted his written statement of defence, along with supporting documents, asserting that he had been wrongly implicated in the case and that no evidence existed against him. He further submits that, although the departmental enquiry appears to have been concluded, neither the enquiry report nor the recommendations or final decision of the disciplinary authority have been communicated to him.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that vide notice dated 02.06.2026, the applicant was informed that his suspension case would be placed before the Review Committee on 03.06.2026. However, the minutes or outcome of the review were not communicated to him. The applicant was subsequently informed on 25.08.2026 that the matter had been forwarded to the General Administration Department vide communication dated 06.07.2026. As submitted, despite the matter having been placed before the Review Committee, no decision regarding his continued suspension was conveyed to him, and his grievance regarding prolonged suspension without an effective review remains unresolved.

ABHISHEK PUNIA

10. The applicant also raises a grievance regarding the withholding of the benefit of placement in the Academic Grade Pay (AGP) of Rs. 7,000/-. It is stated that, vide Government Order dated 10.12.2021, sanction had been accorded for placement of eligible Assistant Professors in the said AGP under the Jammu and Kashmir Education (Gazetted) College Services Recruitment Rules, 2008, as amended vide SRO 124 of 2014, and the applicant's name figured in the said order. However, as stated, the benefit was subsequently withheld following registration of the FIR in 2023, despite the fact that the said benefit had already been sanctioned and was unrelated to the pendency of the criminal case or the subsequent charge sheet.

11. In summary, the grievance as projected by the applicant is, therefore, that he has remained under suspension since 14.02.2023 without being communicated any reasoned decision following periodic review, notwithstanding the constitution of a Review Committee, the pendency of departmental proceedings and his repeated representations. He further contends that the enquiry proceedings have not culminated into any communicated

ABHISHEK PUNIA

final decision and that the benefit of placement in the AGP of Rs. 7,000/-, sanctioned in his favour in 2021, has also been withheld following registration of the criminal case. The applicant accordingly seeks appropriate relief while relying on the grounds as urged in the O.A.

12. Learned counsel for the applicant was confronted as to whether there is any bar for the competent authority to consider reinstatement of the applicant during the pendency of a criminal trial. To this effect, he referred to Para 10 and 11 of a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court decided on 31.07.2023 titled as Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu & Anr. v. D. Jayakumar, submitting that the applicant cannot be kept in a suspended animation endlessly for several years as a criminal case was pending trial before the concerned court. He has also referred to Para 2 & 3 of a judgment titled as S. P. Chandrasekhar v. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, TANGEDCO & Anr., and submitted that in terms of the aforesaid judgments, the orders of suspension have been revoked only on the ground that the suspension period has been prolonged.

ABHISHEK PUNIA

13. Admittedly, suspension is not a punishment. The competent authority is within its powers to place an employee under suspension. However, prolonged suspension tends to be punitive. It is for this reason that certain guidelines have been issued which are attached to Rule 31 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1956, wherein the competent authority has to complete the enquiry within a period of three months. To this effect, we are fortified by the law laid down in the celebrated cases of Askar Hussain v. State of J&K, 1993 SLJ 704 and Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, 2015 (7) SCC 309 as also Balbir Singh v. State of J&K & Ors., 2015 (2) JKJ 484.

14. Law is no more res integra that there can be no escape from the mandate of law, and ordinarily the respondents should have conducted periodical reviews. The purpose of periodical reviews is only to see that the employee is not being paid without any work.

15. Learned counsel for the applicant in order to buttress his arguments submits that the Executive cannot be vested with a totally arbitrary and unfettered powers of placing its officers

ABHISHEK PUNIA

under disability and distress for an indefinite duration and where the delinquent officer is kept under suspension without any charge sheet for a long period, the suspension cannot be justified and Courts have interfered in such matters. To this effect, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases titled as O.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1987(4) SCC 328 and Vijay Kumar v. State of J&K, SL 1987 JK 333.

16. Heard.

17. At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the O.A. is taken up for its disposal.

18. In view of the submissions made hereinabove, the O.A. is disposed of by providing that the respondents shall treat this O.A. as a representation along with all the additional representations filed by the applicant, and shall consider and decide the case of the applicant, in accordance with law, keeping in view the merits of the case and the law cited above in various judicial pronouncements. The respondents shall conclude the exercise by passing a speaking and reasoned order with due dispatch preferably within a period of 06 (six) weeks from the date a certified copy of this Order is served

ABHISHEK PUNIA

upon them. Needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondents shall expeditiously consider and decide the case of the applicant strictly in accordance with the rules governing the field.

19. Accordingly, O.A. No. 1178/2026 is disposed of along with all connected M.A.s, if any.

(Prasant Kumar) Member (Admn.) (M. S. Latif) Member (Judl.)

Abhishek Punia Court Master 26.10.2026

ABHISHEK PUNIA