Authorities must periodically review prolonged suspension and release unpaid subsistence allowance in accordance with law.

The applicant, a Junior Laboratory Technician in the Department of Health Services, Jammu & Kashmir, was placed under suspension by order dated 27 September 2021; the pleadings also referred to order/letter No. 2449-52 dated 27 September 2022 as the formal order continuing the suspension.

He challenged the suspension and sought reinstatement, review and regularisation of the suspension period, payment of subsistence allowance, and consequential service benefits.

His principal grievance was that the respondents had failed to conduct periodic reviews of the suspension as required under the Government instructions attached to Rule 31 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956.

The applicant also relied on his release on bail and his subsequent engagement in official duties, training, Yatra duties and other departmental work, while contending that the pendency of FIR No. 147/2021 could not justify indefinite suspension.

The respondents did not dispute the Tribunal’s consideration of the suspension, and the applicant asserted that even his subsistence allowance had not been paid.

1. Whether the respondents’ failure to conduct periodic reviews of the applicant’s prolonged suspension, as contemplated by Rule 31 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 and the instructions appended thereto, rendered the continued suspension legally unsustainable.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to payment of unpaid subsistence allowance and determination of the applicable rate for the prolonged period of suspension.

3. Whether the respondents were required to reconsider the applicant’s suspension and pass an appropriate order in light of the principles laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary, Askar Hussain and Sajad Hussain Mir.

The Tribunal applied Rule 31 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 and the Government instructions attached to it, which require periodic review of suspension and contemplate completion of disciplinary proceedings within the prescribed period.

It recognised the settled principle that suspension is not a punishment, but that prolonged and indefinite suspension may acquire a punitive character.

The Tribunal relied on Askar Hussain v. State of J&K, 1993 SLJ 704, and Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, concerning the impermissibility of prolonged suspension without timely review or progress in proceedings.

It also relied on Sajad Hussain Mir v. State of J&K & Ors., SWP No. 844/2015, decided on 12 October 2017, regarding the obligation to review continued suspension and the unjustified nature of indefinite suspension without initiation or progress of departmental proceedings.

The Tribunal further held that an employee under prolonged suspension would ordinarily be entitled to subsistence allowance in accordance with the applicable rules, observing that the allowance could be enhanced from 50% to 75% where the relevant conditions were satisfied.

The Tribunal accepted that the competent authority possesses the power to suspend an employee and that suspension, by itself, is not punitive.

However, because the applicant had remained under suspension for a prolonged period, the respondents were required to undertake periodic reviews in accordance with Rule 31 and the applicable Government instructions.

The failure to demonstrate such reviews raised a legal concern under the principles stated in Ajay Kumar Choudhary, Askar Hussain and Sajad Hussain Mir.

The Tribunal did not itself finally quash the suspension or order reinstatement; instead, it directed the competent respondents to reconsider and decide the applicant’s case strictly in accordance with those legal principles.

In view of the applicant’s assertion that subsistence allowance had not been paid, and the Tribunal’s observation that prolonged suspension ordinarily attracted at least 50% and potentially 75% subsistence allowance, the respondents were also directed to release the unpaid allowance in accordance with law.

It directed the respondents to decide the applicant’s case in accordance with Rule 31 and the principles laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary, Askar Hussain and Sajad Hussain Mir, and to pass appropriate orders within six weeks from service of a certified copy of the order.

The respondents were further directed to release the applicant’s unpaid subsistence allowance in accordance with law, if it had not already been paid.

Accordingly, O.A. No. 915 of 2026 and all connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of.