MOHD HAYAT Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is challenging order annexure 'G'. For facility of reference this order is reproduced as under:

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner was to be attached to another office outside the District then he should not have been placed under suspension. According to the petitioner, purpose of keeping a person under suspension is to see that he does not interfere with day to day administration. It is accordingly submitted that when the petitioner was transferred and attached with Field Publicity Unit Jammu, there was no necessity to place him under suspension. Reliance is being placed on instructions issued by the State Government.

(3.) It be seen that the Government instrunctions on which the reliance has been placed by the petitioner are not binding. This view which has been expressed in the case reported as Hem Raj v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1998 2 SCT 817.