QAISER MEHMOOD Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By medium of the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 3rd of February, 2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in OA No.61/128/2021 titled 'Qaiser Mehmood V. The Union Territory of JK and Ors.', whereby the prayer of the petitioner for grant of interim relief has been rejected by the Tribunal. Simultaneously, the petitioner is also seeking quashing of order No. DCS/Misc/2021/964-69 dated 16th of January, 2021, issued by respondent No.3/ Deputy Commissioner, Samba, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension and directed to remain attached in the office of respondent No.3.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition, as stated by the petitioner, are that during his posting as Tehsildar, Bari Brahmana since 18th of February, 2019, a civil dispute was going on with respect to land comprised in Khasra No.1786/579 of Village Birpur, Samba, in the Court of learned Munsiff (JMIC), Samba between Bhanu Pratap Singh and Ravinder Kumar, wherein, in terms of order dated 6th of February, 2020, the petitioner was appointed as Local Commissioner for demarcation of the land of the parties as per revenue record and submit a report before the Court concerned. The petitioner claims to have conducted the demarcation as per revenue record on 5th of August, 2020 and submitted the report on 20th of August, 2020 in the Court of learned Munsiff, Samba, reporting therein that Ravinder Kumar was in possession of land measuring 13 Kanals and 01 Marla and that Bhanu Pratap Singh was not in possession of any land at all. It is contended that immediately thereafter the respondent No.3 issued the order No. DCS/Misc/2021/964-69 dated 16th of January, 2021, thereby placing the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry. It is pleaded by the petitioner that since the aforesaid order dated 16th of January, 2021 was issued by the respondent No.3 without any jurisdiction, the same was, accordingly, challenged by him before the learned Tribunal by medium of OA No.61/128/2021. The learned Tribunal, as stated, in terms of order dated 3rd of February, 2021, has, while admitting the OA to hearing, rejected the prayer of the petitioner for grant of interim relief qua staying the order of suspension of the petitioner. It is this order dated 3rd of February, 2021 of the learned Tribunal that has been assailed by the petitioner in this petition on the grounds detailed out in the petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a member of the J&K Administrative Service (erstwhile Kashmir Administrative Service) having qualified the Combined Services Competition Examination conducted by the J&K Public Service Commission way back in the year 2011 and, on the basis of the recommendations of the Commission, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Scale KAS Officer in terms of Government Order No. 02-GAD of 2012 dated 2nd of January, 2012 issued by the respondent No.1. It is pleaded that, in these circumstances, the petitioner, being a Gazetted Officer, came to be appointed by the respondent No.1 and, that the respondent No.3, thus, in no manner whatsoever, was the appointing authority vested with the power to place the petitioner under suspension. It is contended that as per Rule 31 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, it is the appointing authority or any authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate that can place a Government servant under suspension and, in the case of the petitioner, the appointing authority is the Government, i.e., the respondent No.1 only which has the power and jurisdiction to place the petitioner under suspension. To bring home this argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Circular No.32-JK(GAD) of 2020 dated 26th of November, 2020 as well as Government Order No. 811-JK (GAD) of 2020 dated 1st of September, 2020, to contend that the cases regarding disciplinary action against KAS Officers are required to be placed before Hon'ble the Lieutenant Governor through the Chief Secretary, and any order/ act without the approval of competent authority, in this behalf, besides being legally untenable, may lead to Administrative complicacies as well. It is urged that although all these issues were raised before the learned Tribunal by the counsel for the petitioner, but the learned Tribunal did not appreciate the controversy involved in its true and correct perspective, but has passed the impugned order in hot haste.