tahira akhter vs AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT on 27 October 2026

1. Through the medium of the instant O.A., the applicant seeks the following reliefs:

a. Pass an Order or Direction thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned Suspension Order No. 24/E of 2026 dated 18.07.2026 (No. CHOA/Estt/PF/8611-17) issued by Respondent No. 3, and directing the respondents to reinstate the Applicant in service forthwith with all consequential benefits, including full pay and allowances for the period of suspension;

b. Pass an Order or Direction thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned Show Cause Notice No. CHOA/Est/PF/8618-23 dated 18.07.2026, Final Notice No. CHOA/Estt/PF/9530-42 dated 12.08.2026 and Final Ultimatum No. CHOA/Estt.PF/10398-401. dated 09.09.2026, together with all proceedings initiated or proposed thereunder, being barred by inordinate and unexplained delay of more than twenty-five years, pre-judged, without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law;

c. Restrain the respondents from initiating or continuing any disciplinary/administrative proceedings against the Applicant questioning the validity of her appointment made vide Order No. 100 CA/MISC/2001 dated 13.08.2001 or the testimonials produced and verified at the time of her joining;

d. In the alternative and without prejudice, direct that no disciplinary proceedings on the allegations forming the subject matter of FIR No. 74/2026 be initiated or continued against the Applicant till the final disposal of CRM(M) No. 576/2026 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of J&K and Ladakh and the outcome of the criminal proceedings, if any, and that in no case shall any penalty be imposed upon the Applicant without a regular inquiry in accordance with the J&K CCA Rules, 1956 and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India; e. Direct the respondents to release to the Applicant the entire arrears of subsistence allowance due to her with effect from 18.07.2026 forthwith, together with interest thereon, and to continue paying the same regularly every month for so long as she remains under suspension;

f. Direct the respondents to produce before this Hon'ble Tribunal the complete service record and personal file of the Applicant, including the record of verification of her testimonials at the time of her joining in August 2001, the police letter No. 2206/5- A/PSK/2026 dated 17.07.2026 and the record relating to the impugned orders;

g. Award costs of the present proceedings in favour of the Applicant; and

h. Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just, proper and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The instant O.A. challenges the suspension of the applicant, a Class IV employee (HTG-IV) in the Horticulture Department, UT of J&K, who was appointed on compassionate grounds under SRO 43 of 1994 vide order dated 13.08.2001 and has rendered more than 25 years of continuous service. The applicant contends that her appointment, including verification of her original testimonials, was duly completed at the time of joining and that a subsequent enquiry initiated in 2013 had not provided any adverse findings against her. Despite this, on the basis of an FIR No. 74/2026 at Police Station Kokernag, lodged by her sister in 2026, the respondents placed her under suspension on 18.07.2026, withheld her salary and issued successive notices as regards forgery of certificates, even though the FIR allegedly contains no such allegation.

3. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of J&K and Ladakh stayed the investigation in the FIR vide order dated 05.08.2026, yet the respondents issued a Final Notice dated 12.08.2026 threatening ex parte proceedings without hearing, when otherwise they are not considering her detailed reply dated 14.08.2026 and have not passed any reasoned order. The applicant has challenged the suspension and proposed disciplinary proceedings as arbitrary and illegal, particularly as she has allegedly remained under suspension for nearly three months without a charge-sheet or payment of subsistence allowance.

4. The applicant accordingly seeks quashing of the suspension order and impugned notices, reinstatement with consequential benefits, release of subsistence allowance, and restraint against departmental proceedings founded on the allegations forming the subject matter of the stayed FIR.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant 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 309, 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. He submits that even the subsistence allowance in favour of the applicant has not been released by the respondents.

6. Law is also no more res integra that an order of suspension of a Government employee does not put an end to his service under the Government. The only effect of the order of suspension is that though he continues to be a member of the Government service, he is not permitted to work any further during the period of his suspension and the suspended employee is paid generally called as subsistance allowance which is normally less than the salary.

7. Law is also settled in the case titled as Askar Hussain v. The State of J&K, J&K 1993 SLJ 704, wherein their lordships have held that the period of suspension has to be minimal and the enquiry has to be concluded within a period of three months. Even otherwise, Govt. instructions to Rule 31 also contemplates review of the suspension.

8. Heard.

9. Issue notice upon the respondents. Mr. Syed Musaib, learned DAG, appears and accepts notice for the respondents, who is granted three weeks' time to file his response. In the meanwhile, the respondents shall consider release of the subsistence allowance in favour of the applicant strictly in accordance with law without fail, and at the same time, notwithstanding the pendency of the O.A., the respondents shall review the suspension of the applicant in accordance with law keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases titled as Askar Hussain v. The State of J&K, J&K 1993 SLJ 704 as also Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of Indian & Ors., 2015 (7) SCC 309.

10. List on 28.12.2026. Prasant Kumar Member (A) M. S. Latif Member (J) Abhishek Punia ( court master )