GH. AHMAD SHAH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the medium of this petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of Order No.DDAMA-34 of 2012 dated 15.10.2012 issued by respondent No.3, whereby his period of suspension with effect from 06.06.1990 to 09.04.2002 has been treated as leave of whatever kind due; with a further direction to the respondents to treat his period of suspension as on duty with all consequential benefits, on the grounds taken in the writ petition.

(2.) The facts, as averred in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide Order No.ADAK-11/AK-4/90 dated 06.06.1990. He questioned his suspension by the medium of SWP No.3157/1992. The said writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 14.09.2000 with a direction to the respondents to hold an inquiry against the petitioner within a period of six months, failing which the order of suspension was be treated as quashed. Despite passing of the above direction, respondents failed to hold an inquiry against the petitioner within the period allowed, therefore, vide order dated 09.04.2002 issued by respondent no.4 he came to be reinstated with immediate effect. It is submitted that while issuing the aforesaid reinstatement order, the period of suspension of the petitioner was not settled. It is further submitted that the petitioner again approached this Court by the medium of SWP No.1142/2006 seeking a direction to the respondents to treat his period of suspension as on duty and to allow him all consequential benefits. The said writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 22.05.2008 with a direction to the respondents to settle the period of suspension of the petitioner in accordance with rules and keeping into consideration the directions of this Court passed in the earlier writ petition. The respondents while implementing the direction of this Court passed in SWP No.1142/2006, issued order dated 15.10.2012, impugned herein, whereby the suspension period of the petitioner has been treated as leave of whatever kind due. It is this order which is being challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) The grounds taken by the petitioner in the writ petition is that since he was not found guilty and the respondents had failed to conduct inquiry against him, the respondents are bound to treat his period of suspension as on duty, instead of treating the same as on leave. It is urged that since the respondents had failed to conduct inquiry against him within the time as allowed by this Court, therefore, in terms of the directions passed by this Court in SWP No.3157/1992, his order of suspension has automatically been treated as quashed, and consequently he has already been reinstated. Thus, it is argued that there is no question of treating his period of suspension as on leave; the same is arbitrary, unreasonable and against the principles of natural justice, besides being harsh and punitive. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner further argued that once the order of suspension of the petitioner has been treated as quashed, therefore, the said period has to be treated as the period spent on duty in terms of the provisions of Article 108-B of J&K Civil Service Regulations (Vol.1).