Prolonged Suspension Without Chargesheet Violates Service Jurisprudence and Mandates Periodic Review for Lawful Continuation

The applicant, a Male Nurse appointed under the National Health Mission (NHM) in 2018, was posted at District Hospital, Budgam

Following the registration of FIR No. 59/2025 at Police Station Kakapora, Respondent No. 3 issued Order No. 16 NHM of 2025-26 dated 28.08.2025, placing the applicant’s services in abeyance/suspension

The applicant was later granted bail on 10.11.2025 but was denied reinstatement upon reporting for duty

Despite submitting representations dated 19.11.2025 and 20.04.2026 seeking a review of his suspension, the respondents took no action, prompting this petition

1. Whether the executive possesses unfettered power to keep an employee under suspension for an indefinite duration without conducting a timely review or inquiry?

2. Whether the respondents are legally obligated to decide the applicant's representation for reinstatement in light of settled service jurisprudence regarding time-bound disciplinary proceedings?

The Tribunal applied Rule 31 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, which mandates the completion of an inquiry within three months

It relied on the principle that while suspension is not a punishment, it cannot be arbitrary or of indefinite duration as established in O.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1987) and Vijay Kumar v. State of J&K (1987)

Furthermore, it cited Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015) and Askar Hussain v. State of J&K (1993) to emphasize the requirement of a periodic review of suspension orders within 90 days

The Tribunal observed that the applicant has remained under suspension since August 2025 without a concluded enquiry or a reasoned review of the abeyance order

Applying the ratio from Ajay Kumar Choudhary, the Court reasoned that the executive cannot exercise arbitrary powers to keep an officer in a state of "distress" for an indefinite period without a charge sheet or review

The Tribunal noted that the applicant is currently on bail and has an unblemished service record, yet his representations remained unaddressed

Consequently, the Court determined that the respondents must evaluate the necessity of continued suspension through a "speaking order" to prevent the suspension from becoming a de facto punishment

The respondents are ordered to consider and decide the applicant's case by passing a reasoned and speaking order with "due dispatch," keeping in view the cited judicial pronouncements regarding the limitations on prolonged suspension

The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits but mandated a "prompt and lawful disposal" of the matter