The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that a government employee cannot be suspended just because a criminal case is pending against his father. The Court made it clear that criminal liability cannot be inherited, and penal acts do not pass on to legal heirs.
What was the case about?
The case involved a Class-IV employee of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly Secretariat, who was appointed in 2014. He had served for several years without any complaints, adverse remarks, or misconduct linked to his job.
In 2015, however, the Vigilance Organisation registered an FIR against his father under the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act. The father was arrested in 2017, later released on bail, and the criminal case is still pending before the Anti-Corruption Court.
Despite this, the employee himself was suspended only in May 2021, nearly six years after the FIR, even though no allegation was made against him personally.
Why did the employee challenge the suspension?
The suspension order did not accuse the employee of any wrongdoing. It only referred to “Simultaneous Departmental Action” in his father’s case. The employee approached the High Court, arguing that:
- He had a clean service record
- No misconduct was attributed to him
- The suspension had no legal basis under service rules
- He was being punished only because of his father’s case
What did the High Court say?
A Bench led by Justice Rahul Bharti strongly criticised the suspension.
The Court observed that criminal jurisprudence is based on individual responsibility, and not family links. It clearly stated that if the father is accused of corruption, it does not mean the son should be “painted in bad colour” or subjected to adverse action.
The Court also found that:
- The suspension order gave no reasons
- There was no proof that the employee’s service harmed public interest
- No valid departmental inquiry order was placed on record
- The action was taken after an unexplained delay of almost six years
Strong words from the Court
The High Court said the suspension was “utterly misconceived” and suffered from malice in law, meaning it was legally flawed even if not done with bad intention. The judges noted that the government’s reply relied heavily on allegations against the father and failed to justify action against the employee himself.
Final decision
The High Court quashed the suspension order and directed that the employee be restored to service immediately at his original post.
- Download Court Order PDF (This PDF is available for Premium Users Only. Click here to join premium)
