Jammu and Kashmir High Court quashes 2020 suspension of JKPCC employee

“It is trite in law that, although suspension is not a punishment, but once a suspension is prolonged for almost six years and without any departmental enquiry, as in the present case, then it amounts to punishment, since it has very strong stigmatic social connotations,” the September 22 order said.

The court noted that after the registration of FIR in 2011, which culminated in a chargesheet that stands filed after nine years, and during the pendency of these nine years, no departmental enquiry or preliminary fact-finding was conducted by the respondents.

2011 case, departmental probe still pending

The petitioner was working as a head assistant in JKPCC in 2011 when an FIR was registered by the vigilance against one of the employees under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) for forging his academic qualification certificate and obtaining employment in JKPCC.

Justice M A Chowdhary ordered the state to release all related benefits in the man’s favour and grant pensionary benefits.

In the same FIR, the petitioner was implicated for preparing the service book of the accused without verification of his testimonials, though, as per the petitioner, he was not bound or authorised, in any manner, to direct the verification or re-verification of testimonials which had already been verified by the concerned drawing and disbursing officer way back in 1991-92.

The petitioner argued that from the date of registration of the FIR in 2011 till date, the JKPCC has not even contemplated or initiated any departmental inquiry or even preliminary fact-finding enquiry to ascertain the veracity of the allegations of commission of offences or of alleged misconduct by its employees, in particular against the petitioner.

Suspension can’t be indefinite: Order

The court said that the petitioner was placed under suspension on December 18, 2020, after which he retired from service upon reaching the age of superannuation on May 31, 2021. The ruling noted that it is not in dispute that a chargesheet stands filed before the anti-corruption court, Anantnag, in connection with the case in which the petitioner was placed under suspension.

“The respondents have failed to discharge their obligations to proceed in the matter in accordance with law by issuing a charge sheet and conducting an inquiry after placing the petitioner under suspension for almost six years now, and no plausible reasons have been explained for such a delay in framing the charge sheet, even after a lapse of almost six years,” it remarked.

The court emphasised that it is a settled position of law that the word “suspension” refers to that state when an employee is temporarily debarred by his employer for the time being from performing his official functions or enjoying certain privileges.

It held that the main purpose of placing an employee under suspension by his employer is temporary and is not a permanent feature envisaged for the purposes of completing an enquiry or trial in respect of the conduct of an employee.