Srinagar, May 29: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Srinagar Wednesday granted the Administrator, Associated Hospitals and Government Medical College Srinagar 20 days to conclude the proceedings against an employee who had been suspended 21 years ago.
A bench comprising Judicial Member, M S Latif and Administrative Member, Prasant Kumar directed the administrator to conclude the inquiry against the official Muhammad Younis Mir, who has petitioned against the suspension that he was placed under on December 4, 2003.
The tribunal ordered that the proceedings against Mir be concluded strictly in terms of the law by observing the Principles of Natural Justice and the rules.
The court also asked Mir’s counsel to advise Mir to cooperate with the inquiry to be initiated or to be concluded, if already initiated. The tribunal listed the matter for further hearing on June 21 and directed the Administrator to remain present along with the Law Officer.
In his plea, Mir, through his counsel, submitted that he had been under suspension continually for more than 22 years now, since 2003, despite his acquittal by the competent court in the criminal proceedings which were initiated against him.
The tribunal observed that the petitioner Mir had been placed under suspension given his involvement in an FIR bearing No 148-2003 of Police Station Karan Nagar, Srinagar, under Section 409 (criminal breach of trust) of Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), now replaced by Indian Penal Code (IPC).
While the tribunal observed that the accused was acquitted of the charges vide judgment dated November 23, 2015, passed by the Court of 2nd Additional Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Srinagar, it said: “Prima facie it appears that the State has not preferred any appeal against the judgment passed by the Criminal Court and accordingly, the judgment has assumed finality as on date.” “Law is no more res integra that the competent authority is not barred or precluded from initiating a parallel inquiry against the delinquent and if such an inquiry was initiated, the same had to be concluded strictly following the law and the rules and in conformity with the Rules of Natural Justice,” the tribunal observed.
The tribunal noted that apparently from the contents of the order under challenge, it came forth that inquiry had been initiated, but not culminated for whatever reasons.
“One of the reasons could have been the non-cooperation of the petitioner but that would not mean that the competent authority did not have the ways and means to seek the presence of the petitioner as warranted in terms of the service laws. That too has not been done,” it said.
“The concept of law, as far as suspension is concerned, is that suspension should not be prolonged, the reason behind is that an employee is being paid without any work being extracted from him”.
The tribunal observed that prima facie, it seemed that the authorities concerned had been “hand in glove with the petitioner in leaving his case and not concluding the inquiry or to initiate any inquiry against him for the lapses or otherwise”.
It, accordingly directed for concluding the proceedings against the petitioner.