Nearly Four Years Into Suspension, Srinagar CAT Directs J&K To Issue Reasoned Decision On Professor’s Case, Preferably Within Six Weeks

In brief

The question

Whether the applicant’s prolonged suspension, in the absence of a communicated decision following periodic review, required the respondents to reconsider and decide his case by a reasoned order.

The court held

The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. by directing the respondents to treat it, together with the applicant’s additional representations, as a representation and decide the matter by a speaking and reasoned order, preferably within six weeks of service of a certified copy of the order.

It also directed

It expressed no opinion on the merits and granted no direct order of reinstatement or AGP placement.

01Facts

The applicant, an Assistant Professor (History), was deemed suspended from 14 February 2023 following his arrest in an Anti-Corruption Bureau case.

¶ 2–3

He alleged that his suspension continued for nearly four years without a communicated, reasoned review, despite repeated representations and the constitution of a departmental Review Committee.

¶ 6–9

Departmental proceedings were initiated in December 2025, but he stated that neither the enquiry report nor a final decision had been communicated to him.

¶ 6–9

He also challenged the withholding of his placement in the AGP of Rs. 7,000, which he said had been sanctioned in 2021.

¶ 10

He sought, among other reliefs, revocation of suspension, completion of disciplinary proceedings, and the AGP benefit.

¶ 1

02Issues

i.Whether the applicant’s prolonged suspension, in the absence of a communicated decision following periodic review, required the respondents to reconsider and decide his case by a reasoned order.

¶ 11, 13–18

ii.Whether the Tribunal should itself direct reinstatement or grant the claimed AGP and other consequential benefits.

¶ 1, 10, 18

03Law Applied

Suspension is not a punishment, and the competent authority has power to suspend an employee; however, prolonged suspension may assume a punitive character and must be subject to periodic review.

¶ 13

The Tribunal referred to the guidelines attached to Rule 31 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, including the requirement to complete the enquiry within three months.

¶ 13

It relied on Askar Hussain v. State of J&K, 1993 SLJ 704; Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 309; Balbir Singh v. State of J&K & Ors., (2015) 2 JKJ 484; O.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 328; and Vijay Kumar v. State of J&K, SLJ 1987 JK 333, in considering the limits on indefinite suspension and the need for timely proceedings.

¶ 13–15

The Tribunal also noted the applicant’s reliance on two Madras High Court decisions concerning prolonged suspension.

¶ 12

04Reasoning

The applicant’s suspension had continued since February 2023, and he alleged that no reasoned review decision had been communicated despite representations and a Review Committee process.

¶ 6–9, 11

Applying the principles that suspension is not punishment but should not continue indefinitely without appropriate review, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the matter under the applicable rules and cited authorities.

¶ 13–18

It did not determine whether the applicant was entitled to reinstatement, the AGP benefit, or any particular outcome in the disciplinary or criminal proceedings; it expressly left the merits to the respondents.

¶ 18