WP(C) No. 2369/2025 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Pronounced on : 03.02.2026. Uploaded on : 06.02.2026. WP(C) No. 2369/2025 Gaurav Saini …..Petitioner Through: Mr. Rahul Pant, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dhruv Pant, Advocate Vs UT of J&K & Ors. .….Respondents Through: Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT (ORAL) 01. Through the medium of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged order No. 778-DULBJ of 2023 dated 11.08.2023 passed by respondent No. 2-Director, Urban Local Bodies, Jammu, in terms whereof he has been placed under suspension pending inquiry into his conduct in terms of Rule 31(1) of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. Regular List Serial No. 77 WP(C) No. 2369/2025 02. According to the petitioner, he is holding the post of Khilafwarzi Inspector in the Municipal Council Udhampur. Initially he was appointed in the Department of Urban Local Bodies, Jammu, in the year 2002. It is submitted that in May, 2023 one Vijay Kumar started raising construction of his house, and upon coming to know about the same, the petitioner directed him not to undertake any earth cutting without obtaining proper permission from the competent authority. 03. It has further been submitted that Vijay Kumar applied for permission to raise construction on 16.05.2023, however, his site plan was not sanctioned by the competent authority, i.e., the Building Operation Controlling Authority (BOCA). In June, 2023, Vijay Kumar again started construction, whereupon the petitioner reported the matter to the competent authority vide his report dated 10.07.2023. Consequently, a notice dated 10.07.2023 was issued directing Vijay Kumar to stop construction, which was served upon him by the petitioner. 04. According to the petitioner, despite service of notice upon Sh. Vijay Kumar, he clandestinely continued with the work of earth cutting, as a result of which a landslide WP(C) No. 2369/2025 occurred and two labourers engaged by him sustained serious injuries, which ultimately led to their death. Consequently, an FIR came to be registered against Sh. Vijay Kumar. 05. It is submitted that an inquiry committee was appointed by the District Magistrate, Udhampur, which conducted an inquiry and indicted the petitioner on the allegation that the notice had not been properly served. On the basis of the committee’s report, the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur, vide communication dated 28.07.2023, recommended disciplinary action against the petitioner, leading to the passing of the impugned suspension order. 06. It has been further submitted that on 19.08.2023, a Memorandum and Articles of Charges were served upon the petitioner, to which he submitted his reply dated 24.08.2023. Respondent No. 2 constituted another committee vide order dated 15.04.2024, which, as per the petitioner, exonerated him. Despite this, the suspension was not revoked. 07. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that despite completion of the inquiry, he has neither been reinstated nor has the suspension been WP(C) No. 2369/2025 reviewed, thereby violating his rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 08. It has also been contended that under Rule 31 of the J&K Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1956, it is mandatory for the competent authority to review an order of suspension from time to time, which has not been done in the present case. 09. The petitioner contends that once the inquiry report has been furnished, the suspension cannot be continued indefinitely until further orders. 10. The petitioner has also placed on record Order No. 108- DULBJ of 2025 dated 14.10.2025, passed by respondent No. 2, whereby after considering the inquiry report, a penalty under Rule 30(iii) and (iv) of the J&K Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1956 has been imposed upon the petitioner by reducing him by eight stages in the time scale of pay for a period of five years, with the condition that he would not earn increments during the said period and the reduction would have the effect of postponing future increments. 11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that once the departmental inquiry has concluded and the competent authority has passed a final order imposing WP(C) No. 2369/2025 penalty, there remains no justification for continuing the suspension. It is also being submitted that the order of imposition of penalty has been separately challenged by the petitioner and the said petition is pending adjudication before this Court. 12. Heard and considered. 13. Although the respondents are yet to file objections, the fact that the enquiry has concluded and the penalty order dated 14.10.2025 has been passed is not in dispute. The question that arises for determination is whether there is any justification for the respondents to continue the suspension of the petitioner. 14. It is a settled law that suspension cannot be prolonged indefinitely. Once the disciplinary proceedings conclude and a final decision is taken, the suspension is required to be revoked. In the present case, the inquiry has already been concluded and the competent authority has imposed the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay against the petitioner. Upon imposition of penalty against a delinquent official, the order of penalty has to take effect and his suspension comes to an end. Therefore, the suspension order of the petitioner can no longer be justified. WP(C) No. 2369/2025 15. In view of the aforesaid subsequent development, the impugned suspension order No. 778-DULBJ of 2023 dated 11.08.2023 passed by respondent No. 2 is quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. The issue regarding fate of the suspension period of the petitioner shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules and the law. 16. The petition is accordingly, disposed of. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 03.02.2026 SUNIL Whether the order is speaking ? : Yes Whether the order is reportable ? : No