U.T. OF J&K Vs. MOOL RAJ RAINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioners challenging an order and judgment dtd. 31/12/2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, Jammu ["the Tribunal"] in OA No. 1506/2023 titled "Mool Raj Raina Vs. UT of J&K and others", whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA of the respondent and quashed the order of suspension dtd. 16/5/2023. The impugned order of suspension has been quashed by the Tribunal, primarily on the ground, that the disciplinary authority had failed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of six months. The Tribunal has placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Prem Nath Bali Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi", (2015) 16 SCC 415.

(2.) The impugned judgment is challenged by the petitioners on multiple grounds, however, during the course of arguments, it is brought to our notice that a similarly situated person, namely Farooq Ali, who was also a Panchayat Secretary at Block Mathwar, Jammu and was placed under suspension under similar set of circumstances, has been reinstated and his order of suspension was reviewed by the Directorate of Rural Development Department Jammu vide order No. 27-DRDJ of 2025 dtd. 7/1/2025.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the respondent is similarly situated with Mr. Farooq Ali who also placed under suspension under similar charges of retaining official files at his residence, which were seized by the police party. Under a similar set of allegation against the respondent who, too, was serving as Secretary Panchayat at Block Mathwar, before his transfer to Block Bhalwal certain official records were seized by the police party from his possession. This action by the Police became the basis for placing the respondent as well Farooq Ali under suspension by way of two different orders issued on the same day, i.e., 16/5/2023. The case of Farooq Ali has been reviewed on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and he has been reinstated. The enquiry report with regard to the respondent herein is also the same with similar conclusion and, therefore, the case of the respondent herein ought to have been considered for reviewing his suspension along with Farooq Ali. This has not been done, probably for the reason that, the respondent is in litigation with the petitioners.