STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: Central Administrative Tribunal held that suspension is not a punishment as it is neither punitive nor stigmatic. It is generally done for fair inquiry.
This significant order has been passed by Rajinder Singh Dogra (J) Member Central Administrative Tribunal in a petition filed by Dr. Vikas Gupta quash the Government Order No. 195-JK (APD) of 2024 dated April 18, passed by Respondent No. 2, whereby and whereunder, he has been placed under suspension. The applicant also seeks a direction to respondents to allow him to perform his duties as Incharge Assistant Project Officer in the Directorate of Sheep Husbandry, Kashmir with additional charge of the post of Joint Director (Farms), Kashmir as was being performed by the him before passing of the impugned order of suspension bearing Government Order No. 195-JK (APD) of 2024 dated April 18, 2024.
CAT after hearing both the sides observed that in normal circumstances, suspension orders are not interfered by Courts except when the same has been passed by an incompetent authority or it is in violation of relevant rules. In the instant case, the applicant was placed under suspension vide order dated April 18, 2024. Even, charge sheet has been issued vide memorandum dated April 29, 2024.
A perusal of the file as well as charge sheet shows that serious allegations of causing loss to exchequer has been levelled against the applicant. It is not the case of the applicant that the suspension order has been passed by an incompetent authority or it has been passed in violation of statute. The main argument advanced by the applicant is that the impugned suspension order is vindictive in nature in as much as the same has been issued for taking revenge against the applicant as in Contempt Petition No. 40 of 2024 filed by the applicant, this Tribunal vide order dated April 22, 2024 attached the salary of Director General, Sheep Husbandry Department Kashmir. In my opinion though the timing of issuance of the impugned suspension order is intriguing, it is not a sufficient ground to stay the same.
Even otherwise, interfering with the suspension order, when charge sheet has also been issued, would mean preventing the respondents from discharging their obligation to proceed in accordance with law. Suspension is not a punishment as it is neither punitive nor stigmatic. It is generally done for fair inquiry, CAT ordered.
Accordingly, in view of the discussions made above, CAT Member observed that I am not inclined to grant any interim stay against the impugned suspension order dated April 18, 2024. Accordingly, the prayer for interim relief is rejected.