'Penal Liability Doesn't Pass On To Legal Heirs': J&K&L High Court Quashes Suspension Of Employee Over Father's Corruption Case
Jammu and Kashmir High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the suspension of a government employee solely on the basis of criminal proceedings pending against his father is impermissible in law, as penal liability cannot be inherited by legal heirs.
The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging an order suspending a Class-IV employee of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly Secretariat, purportedly in connection with a criminal case registered against his father under the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act.
Stating that “penal act does/do not pass on to the legal heir/s of an accused person is the basis of criminal jurisprudence”, a Bench of Justice Rahul Bharti observed thus:
“If the petitioner's father was allegedly found to be involved in acts of omission or commission amounting to offence under section 5 of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, the same does not mean that the petitioner is to be perceived, projected, painted and put to bad treatment as being delivered to him in the form of the impugned suspension order”.
The petitioner was appointed as a Class-IV employee in the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly Secretariat in 2014. He asserted that since his appointment, he had discharged his duties without any adverse remarks or allegations relating to his service conduct.
In 2015, an FIR was registered by the Vigilance Organisation, Jammu, against the petitioner's father, alleging commission of offences under Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006.
The petitioner's father was arrested in 2017 in connection with the FIR and later released on bail. A challan was subsequently presented before the Anti-Corruption Court, Jammu, where the criminal case remained pending.
Despite the FIR having been registered in 2015, the petitioner was placed under suspension only in May 2021 by an order issued by the Additional Secretary, Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly Secretariat.
The suspension order did not attribute any act of omission or commission to the petitioner himself and merely cited a reference to the initiation of "Simultaneous Department Action (RDA)" in the father's case.
Aggrieved by the suspension, the petitioner approached the High Court, contending that the order was arbitrary, lacked jurisdictional basis under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, and was founded solely on allegations against his father.
The High Court examined the impugned suspension order and found that it did not disclose any misconduct attributable to the petitioner in relation to his discharge of official duties. The Court observed that the order lacked reasons and failed to demonstrate that the petitioner's continued service was detrimental to the public interest.
The Court held that the contingencies prescribed under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, for placing an employee on suspension were not applicable to the petitioner's case.
It noted that while the respondents claimed a regular departmental enquiry had been initiated, no order setting up such an inquiry was referred to or annexed with their reply filed in January 2022.
The Bench emphasised that criminal proceedings against a family member cannot be a basis to visit adverse service consequences upon an employee. The Court remarked that the respondents' reply was filled with citations but, on the factual side, drew solely from accusations against the petitioner's father.
The Court further noted that even if the FIR against the petitioner's father were deemed relevant, the suspension order had been passed nearly six years after the FIR was registered, reflecting a lack of application of mind.
The High Court also found that the respondents had failed to reconsider the suspension, despite the passage of time and the filing of the reply without annexures.
The Court concluded that the suspension order was “utterly misconceived [and] vitiated with malice in law if not in fact”, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court quashed the suspension order and directed that the petitioner be restored to service at the post from which he had been suspended. The writ petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of.
Case Title: Ishant Sharma v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.
Citation: LiveLaw 2026 (JKL)