Prolonged Suspension Without Periodic Review Violates Mandated Service Rules and Established Judicial Precedents

The applicant, a Deputy Forester in the Kamraj Forest Division, Kupwara, was placed under suspension via Order No. 103 of 2025 dated 16.07.2025 following his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 10.07.2025

Although a chargesheet was filed by the CBI on 09.09.2025 and the applicant was subsequently released on bail, the respondents neither initiated a departmental inquiry nor reviewed/extended the suspension order as required by service rules

Despite the respondents acknowledging that the suspension had exceeded 90 days and recommending an increase in subsistence allowance on 22.11.2025, the applicant’s representations for reinstatement dated 18.11.2025 and 29.12.2025 remained unaddressed

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking the revocation of his suspension

1. Whether the continued suspension of the applicant without periodic review is legally sustainable under service jurisprudence

2. Whether the respondents are obligated to consider the applicant's representation for reinstatement in light of the prolonged suspension exceeding 90 days

The Tribunal primarily relied on the legal principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015) SC 2389, which mandates that a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if a chargesheet is not served within that period, and if a chargesheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension

The court also adhered to the procedural requirements of the applicable J&K Civil Services Rules regarding the periodic review of suspension and the enhancement of subsistence allowance

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had been under suspension since July 2025 and that the investigation had culminated in a chargesheet by September 2025

The respondents failed to conduct the mandatory periodic review of the suspension beyond the initial 90-day period

The Tribunal highlighted that while the respondents acknowledged the lapse of 90 days by recommending an increase in subsistence allowance, they took no definitive action on the applicant's request for reinstatement

By applying the Ajay Kumar Choudhary precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that prolonged suspension without review or departmental proceedings is arbitrary and prejudicial

Rather than adjudicating on the merits, the Tribunal found it appropriate to compel the respondents to perform their statutory duty of reviewing the suspension in a time-bound manner

The respondents are ordered to review the applicant’s suspension and consider his grievances specifically in light of the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India. This exercise must be completed within four weeks from the receipt of the order through a comprehensive, reasoned, and speaking order