SHOWKAT AHMED GANAI vs HOME DEPARTMENT on 2 November 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. Quash and set aside Order No. 327 of 2020 dated 27.02.2020, issued by the respondents whereby the applicant has been placed under suspension, along with all consequential orders, if any.

b. Direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service forthwith, with all consequential service benefits, including restoration of his status and continuity of service.

c. Direct the respondents to release the subsistence allowance payable to the applicant at the rate of 75%, in accordance with the applicable rules, from the date on which the applicant became entitled to the enhanced rate, together with all consequential arrears.

d. Direct the respondents to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance, insofar as they are founded upon the same allegations, facts and evidence which constitute the subject matter of the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 25 of 2020, in view of the specific provisions of the J&K Police Rules and the principles governing parallel criminal and departmental proceedings.

e. Grant such other or further relief as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem just, fit and proper in the facts and

ABHISHEK PUNIA

circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

2. The facts as narrated in the O.A. are that the applicant is serving as a Senior Grade Constable in the J&K Police Department when he came to be implicated in FIR No. 25 of 2020, registered at Police Station Kheer Bhawani, under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The applicant submits that he had neither committed nor participated in any act and submits that the allegations are yet to be adjudicated by the competent criminal court. Consequent upon registration of the FIR, the applicant was placed under suspension in the year 2020 and has continued to remain under suspension since then.

3. It is stated that, despite completion of the prescribed period of six months of suspension, the respondents have continued to pay the applicant subsistence allowance at the rate of 50%, instead of enhancing it to 75% of the admissible amount, as claimed by him under the applicable service rules. The applicant contends that no reasoned order or lawful justification for withholding the enhanced subsistence allowance has been communicated to him.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant’s

ABHISHEK PUNIA

prolonged suspension has not been subjected to periodic review, nor was a charge-sheet served upon him within a reasonable period. The charge-sheet in the departmental proceedings was issued only on 08.03.2025, whereas the suspension had commenced in 2020. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, contending that suspension cannot be continued mechanically for an indefinite period without periodic review and proper justification. He also submits that the departmental proceedings arise out of substantially the same occurrence and material which constitute the subject matter of FIR No. 25 of 2020. In this regard, he relies upon Rule 338(2) of the J&K Police Rules and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., to contend that although departmental and criminal proceedings can, in principle, proceed simultaneously, where both are founded upon identical facts, the charges are grave and complicated questions of fact and law arise, it is desirable that the departmental proceedings be stayed until conclusion of the criminal case. He further submits that the

ABHISHEK PUNIA

inquiry report has not been furnished to him despite completion of the departmental inquiry.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant also relies upon the case of one Mohammad Rafiq, SGCT, who was facing criminal proceedings arising out of another NDPS case, to highlight the different course adopted by the Department in dealing with similarly situated employees. He submits that applicant’s continued suspension, despite the availability of less prejudicial administrative alternatives, has caused grave financial and professional prejudice, particularly when the criminal trial is stated to be at an advanced stage.

6. Being aggrieved by the prolonged and allegedly unjustified continuation of suspension, denial of enhanced subsistence allowance and the manner in which the departmental proceedings have been conducted, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by filing the present O.A. seeking appropriate reliefs on the grounds as urged in the O.A.

7. Admittedly, suspension is not a punishment. The competent authority is within its powers to place an employee

ABHISHEK PUNIA

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.

8. 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.

9. 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 under disability and distress for an indefinite duration and where the delinquent officer is kept under suspension without any

ABHISHEK PUNIA

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.

10. Heard.

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

12. 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, 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 upon them. Further, in the meantime, the respondents shall also consider the enhancement of subsistence allowance in favour of the applicant in accordance with the law and the rules. Needless to

ABHISHEK PUNIA

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.

13. Accordingly, O.A. No. 1215/2026 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 02.11.2026

ABHISHEK PUNIA