Mushtaq ahmad bhat vs GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR on 27 October 2026

ORDER

(Oral)

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

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

a. Allow the present Original Application and quash, set aside or suitably modify the continued suspension of the applicant imposed vide Order No. 03-Flori of 2023 dated 03.01.2023, issued under endorsement No. DFK/Adm- 23/08-10 dated 03.01.2023, as being arbitrary, unreasonable and unsustainable in law, particularly in view of the prolonged duration of suspension, the applicant's acquittal vide judgment dated 23.10.2025, and the alleged failure of the respondents to undertake periodic review in accordance with the applicable service rules and binding instructions;

b. Direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service against his substantive post of Gardener in the Department of Floriculture, Gardens and Parks, Jammu & Kashmir, with all consequential service benefits admissible under the applicable rules;

c. Direct the respondents to produce the complete record pertaining to the applicant's suspension, including all periodic review orders, if any, and, in the absence of a review as required under the applicable rules or instructions, direct the competent authority to undertake an immediate review and pass a reasoned and speaking order regarding the continuation or revocation of the suspension;

d. Direct the respondents to consider and decide the applicant's case for revocation of suspension and reinstatement, in light of the judgment of acquittal dated 23.10.2025, the findings recorded therein, the status of the departmental proceedings and all other relevant circumstances, within a time bound period prescribed by this Hon'ble Tribunal;

e. Direct the respondents to consider the effect of the applicant's acquittal upon the departmental proceedings

ABHISHEK PUNIA

arising out ofthe same allegations and to proceed further, if warranted, strictly in accordance with the applicable service rules, the evidence on record and the principles of natural justice;

2. The facts as narrated in the O.A. are that the applicant was appointed as a Gardener in the Department of Floriculture in the year 2011 on compassionate grounds and has been discharging his duties sincerely, and maintained an unblemished service record prior to the events giving rise to the present O.A.

3. It is stated that in July 2022, the applicant was assigned duties at the entry ticket counter of Mughal Garden, Chashma Shahi, Srinagar, during the evening shift. As stated, although appointed as Gardener, he was neither appointed nor specifically trained for ticketing duties, still he accepted the assignment in view of the shortage of staff and the directions of his superiors. In November 2022, a surprise inspection of the ticket counter revealed certain irregularities, including unaccounted cash and counterfoils in place of tickets. Consequently, a committee was constituted vide Order No. 442-Flori of 2022 dated 21.11.2022 to conduct a preliminary enquiry.

4. It is stated that, on the basis of the preliminary enquiry, the

ABHISHEK PUNIA

applicant was placed under suspension vide Order No. 03-Flori of 2023 dated 03.01.2023. In connection with the alleged irregularities, FIR No. 02/2023 under Sections 419, 420 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Nishat on the complaint of the Assistant Floriculture Officer. Simultaneously, departmental proceedings were initiated against the applicant under Rule 33 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956.

5. It is further stated that a show-cause notice dated 09.01.2023 was issued to the applicant, who submitted his reply along with the relevant explanation. Thereafter, on the same date, an office memorandum, articles of charge and statement of imputations were served upon him, requiring him to submit his written statement of defence. As stated, the applicant duly submitted his defence, contesting the allegations and explaining the circumstances in which he had been assigned ticket counter duties.

6. It is stated that vide Order No. 254-Flori of 2023 dated 12.04.2023, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and a Presenting

ABHISHEK PUNIA

Officer was nominated to conduct the departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer subsequently submitted a report recording findings on the charges framed against the applicant. However, as stated, a copy of the enquiry report has not been furnished to the applicant despite his requests. Thereafter, the Administrative Department, vide communication No. FOLRI-NGZ/37/2023-09 dated 21.02.2024, conveyed approval for issuance of a show-cause notice proposing dismissal from service. The applicant submitted his response to the proposed action, contesting the proposed penalty and requested consideration of his defence and the material available on record before any final decision was taken.

7. It is stated that the criminal case arising out of FIR No. 02/2023 culminated in the applicant's acquittal by the Court of the Forest Magistrate, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Srinagar, vide judgment dated 23.10.2025. It is further stated that the said judgment was thereafter served upon the respondents and brought to their notice. As stated, the acquittal constitutes a material subsequent development which ought to be considered while reviewing his continued suspension and determining the

ABHISHEK PUNIA

appropriate course of action in the departmental proceedings.

8. The applicant further submits that, despite his acquittal, his suspension has continued and his requests for revocation of suspension and reinstatement in service have not resulted in any effective decision being communicated to him. It is also stated that he has continued to receive subsistence allowance at the rate of 50% of his salary since 03.01.2023, without enhancement to 75%, despite the prolonged period of suspension.

9. It is further contended that the respondents have failed to furnish the enquiry report despite the applicant having sought the same under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The applicant submits that the non-supply of the inquiry report has prejudiced his service interests and prevented him from effectively examining the findings recorded against him.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant while buttressing their arguments have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that an order of suspension should not be continued for an indefinite period and

ABHISHEK PUNIA

that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served within that period, subject to the observations made therein regarding extension of suspension upon service of charges and the recording of reasons. The applicant accordingly seeks revocation of his suspension and reinstatement in service, consideration of the judgment of acquittal, furnishing of the enquiry report, observance of the principles of natural justice in the departmental proceedings, and enhancement of subsistence allowance with consequential arrears.

11. Admittedly, the competent authority is within its powers to place an employee under suspension and suspension is not a punishment. But at the same time, the Executive cannot be vested with a total arbitrary and unfettered powers of placing its officers 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, I am fortified by a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court

ABHISHEK PUNIA

reported as O.P. Gupta v. Union of India 1987 (4) SCC 328, Vijay Kumar v. State of J&K SLJ 1987 JK 333.

12. It is for this reason that certain guidelines have been issued which are attached to Rule 31 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, wherein the competent authority has to complete the enquiry within a period of three months. To this effect, I am also 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.

13. Heard.

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

15. The O.A. is disposed of by providing that the respondents shall treat this O.A. as a representation, and shall consider and decide the case of the applicant as regards his suspension, in accordance with law, keeping in view the merits of the case and the law cited in the judicial pronouncements mentioned above. The respondents shall decide the case of the applicant by passing a

ABHISHEK PUNIA

speaking and reasoned order within a period of (06) six weeks from the date a certified copy of this Order is served upon the respondents. Needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondents shall expeditiously decide the case of the applicant strictly in accordance with the law cited above and the rules governing the field.

16. Accordingly, O.A. No. 1187/2026 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 27.10.2026

ABHISHEK PUNIA