After Acquittal, J&K Gardener Remains Suspended; CAT Gives Department Six Weeks To Decide Whether Suspension Should Continue

In brief

The question

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to reconsider the applicant’s continued suspension in light of its duration, his acquittal, and the applicable law and service rules

The court held

The O.A. was disposed of by treating it as a representation concerning the applicant’s suspension.

It also directed

The respondents were directed to consider and decide the matter, in accordance with law and the governing rules, by a speaking and reasoned order within six weeks after service of a certified copy of the order. The Tribunal expressly stated that it had expressed no opinion on the merits

01Facts

The applicant, a Gardener in the Department of Floriculture, was suspended on 3 January 2023 following alleged irregularities at a garden ticket counter. Criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings were initiated; the departmental enquiry report was not furnished to him, and a show-cause notice proposing dismissal followed. He was acquitted in the criminal case on 23 October 2025, but his suspension continued. He sought revocation of suspension, reinstatement, consideration of the acquittal, and related reliefs

pp. 2–6

The Tribunal heard the matter and disposed of it at the applicant’s counsel’s request

p. 8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the respondents should be directed to reconsider the applicant’s continued suspension in light of its duration, his acquittal, and the applicable law and service rules

pp. 6–8

ii.2. Whether the Tribunal should itself order reinstatement or other consequential relief, or instead require the competent authority to decide the matter by a reasoned order

pp. 2–3, 8–9

03Law Applied

Under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, the competent authority may place an employee under suspension, but suspension is not a punishment and cannot be continued arbitrarily or indefinitely. The Tribunal referred to guidelines attached to Rule 31, under which the competent authority is to complete the enquiry within three months

p. 8

It relied on *O.P. Gupta v. Union of India*, 1987 (4) SCC 328, and *Vijay Kumar v. State of J&K*, SLJ 1987 JK 333, for the principle that prolonged suspension without a charge-sheet may be unjustified

p. 7

It also cited *Askar Hussain v. State of J&K*, 1993 SLJ 704, and *Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India*, (2015) 7 SCC 309; as summarised by the Tribunal, *Ajay Kumar Choudhary* cautions against prolonged suspension and requires reasons where suspension is extended after service of charges

pp. 7–8

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 419 Section 420 Section 109

04Reasoning

The Tribunal recognised the competent authority’s power to suspend but emphasised that such power cannot result in an employee remaining under disability and distress indefinitely

p. 7

Given the applicant’s prolonged suspension and acquittal, it directed the respondents to consider the suspension in accordance with the governing rules and cited authorities. It did not determine the merits of the criminal acquittal’s effect on the departmental proceedings or decide whether reinstatement was warranted; those matters were left for the competent authority

pp. 8–9