Sulandar Singh vs SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT on 4 November 2026

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

a. That this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to and accept the instant original Application.

b. Allow That the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to Direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service, with liberty to assign him to an appropriate place of posting or other suitable duty in accordance with the applicable service rules and administrative requirements.

c. That the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased Direct the respondents to consider and grant all consequential service benefits admissible under the applicable rules, including the appropriate treatment of the suspension period, subject' to the governing rules and the outcome of any proceedings lawfully relevant to such determination.

d. Any other, order or direction which this Hon ble Tribunal may deem fit in the circumstances of the case may also.be passed in favor of the applicant and against the non-applicants in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The short facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Junior Assistant in the School Education Department vide Order dated 05.03.2005 and was subsequently promoted as Senior Assistant, having rendered more than 20 years of service. As stated, an FIR No. 03 of 2019 at Police Station Anti- Corruption Bureau Srinagar under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was registered against him in 2019, pursuant to which he was placed under suspension vide Order dated 21.01.2019.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has remained under suspension for over seven years without any periodic review. It is contended that the criminal trial has reached its concluding stage, with all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, having been examined, none of whom could establish the alleged demand of bribe. The applicant submits that the continued suspension, without any reconsideration, is arbitrary, disproportionate and punitive in nature. The applicant, accordingly, seeks appropriate reliefs on the grounds as urged in the O.A.

4. Ms. Sehreen Zehra, learned counsel for the applicant submits that suspension is not a punishment but prolonged suspension tends to be punitive. She submits that it is over seven years now that case of the applicant has never been reviewed when otherwise, in terms of the guidelines attached with Rule 31 of J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal Rules), 1956, the competent authority was under a legal obligation to have conducted periodical review so that suspension of the applicant could have been reviewed and petitioner reinstated and assigned normal duties.

5. In order to substantiate her arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, 2015 (7) SCC 291, wherein it is observed that suspension, specially preceding the formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and must perforce be of short duration. If it is for an indeterminate period or if its renewal is not based on sound reasoning contemporaneously available on the record, this would render it punitive in nature. Departmental/disciplinary proceedingsinvariably commence with delay, are plagued with procrastination prior and post the drawing up of the Memorandum of Charges, and eventually culminate after even longer delay.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that a suspended person not only suffers from the social stigma but also a prolonged suspension amounts to his degradation in the society. She has also relied upon the case titled as Ashok Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. (WPC 3216/2023), wherein their lordships, while relying upon a catena of judgments, have quashed the order of suspension. She has also relied upon the case titled as Balbir Singh v. State of J&K & Ors., 2015 (2) JKJ 484, wherein it has been held that prolonged suspension, by itself, has the effect of causing distress and agony to an employee and the Court further held that after an employee is suspended, he is required to be dealt with under rules immediately and he cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period.

7. Admittedly, suspension may not be a punishment but prolonged suspension is bad as same is repressive and causes distress, and as stated by learned counsel for the applicant, no public or administrative purpose would be served by prolonging the period of suspension. Reliance is also laid down in the case titled as Askar Hussain v. State of J&K & Ors., 1993 JKLR 262, wherein their lordships have held that any order of suspension, if not reviewed within the period of three months, is to be declared as non-est.

8. Heard.

9. Issue notice upon the respondents. Mr. Satinder Singh, learned AAG, appears and accepts notice for the respondents, who is granted four weeks' time to file his response.

10. In the meantime, it is ordered that respondents shall conduct review of the suspension of the applicant by holding a review meeting in accordance with law within the aforesaid period of four weeks and also take note of the judicial pronouncements cited above. It is expected that the competent authority will take note of the fact that the period of suspension should always be minimum.

11. Alteration/modification on motion.

12. List on 16.12.2026. M. S. Latif Member (J) Abhishek Punia ( court master )