Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 123 (JK)

Bashir Ahmad Itoo v. State of J&K

2018-03-03

M.K.HANJURA

body2018
JUDGMENT : M.K. Hanjura, J. 1. The grievance of the petitioner precisely is that he is a member of the Jammu and Kashmir Labour (Subordinate) service, holding the post of Labour Inspector on substantive basis. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the investigation of cases arising out of FIR No. 40 of 2017 and FIR No. 57 of 2017, registered at Police Station, Maisuma, on flimsy grounds. The petitioner was released on bail, on the dates 06.11.2017 and 14.11.2017. After his release, he wanted to resume his duties but to his dismay, he was not allowed to do so, on the ground that he shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension. On 28.11.2017, respondent No. 2, issued a formal order which provided that "in pursuance of Section 31(2) of Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956" the petitioner shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from 06.11.2017. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 28.11.2017, on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that deemed suspension as contemplated by Rule 31(2) supra will automatically come to an end on the release of the detained person and the order of deemed suspension under the said Rule cannot be passed after an employee is released from the custody. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since more than three months have elapsed from the date of passing the order and no charge sheet has been issued against him, therefore, the suspension of the petitioner cannot be continued or extended beyond this period. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has proceeded to state that an enquiry has been conducted into the matter, wherein, it has been established that the petitioner is not involved in any misconduct and on this analogy, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and fabricated. To buttress his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the report of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Srinagar, which is attached to the petition as Annexure-A. From the perusal of this report, what comes to the fore is that the allegations levelled against the petitioner, apparently seem to be unjustified and unwarranted. 4. To buttress his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the report of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Srinagar, which is attached to the petition as Annexure-A. From the perusal of this report, what comes to the fore is that the allegations levelled against the petitioner, apparently seem to be unjustified and unwarranted. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he will feel satisfied in case the respondents are directed to review the order of suspension of the petitioner within a particular time frame, on the analogy of law laid down in the cases of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary vs. Union of India through its Secretary and Another, (2015) 7 SCC 291 and Chandra Shekhar Saxena Another vs. Director of Education (Basic) U.P. Lucknow and Another, 1997 (1) ALR 445, decided on 04th November, 1996. 5. Viewed in the above context, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the review of the suspension of the petitioner in light of the judgments detailed above within a period of six weeks from the date the certified copy of this order along with the annexure attached to the writ petition are provided to the respondents.