Nine Months of Suspension vs Seven-Day PDD Inquiry: J&K’s Contrasting Disciplinary Timelines Raise Questions
||Black and White Digital News ||
||Parvinder Singh August 14,2026 ||
JAMMU: A sharp debate is emerging in Jammu and Kashmir over what many in civil society perceive as contrasting approaches to disciplinary proceedings involving government employees, particularly when the cases concern police personnel on one hand and employees of other departments on the other.
The issue has come into focus after the reinstatement of Jammu Power Distribution Corporation Limited (JPDCL) Assistant Engineer Pankaj Dubey, who had been suspended along with other officials on August 6, 2026, and the continued suspension of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) Sunil Singh Jasrotia, the then SDPO Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, since November 13, 2025.
The two cases, though arising from different circumstances and governed by their respective departmental procedures, have prompted questions over the speed, accountability and timelines of departmental inquiries in the Union Territory.
PDD employee reinstated after committee submits report
According to the JPDCL order dated August 13, 2026, Pankaj Dubey, then AE (IT), ED-I SD-III JPDCL and presently I/c AEE STD-I JPDCL Jammu, was placed under suspension through an order dated August 6, 2026.
The Managing Director, JPDCL subsequently constituted a committee to inquire into the alleged dereliction of duty. The committee was directed to submit its report within seven days.
The committee submitted its report on August 13 and recommended revocation of suspension and reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Acting on the recommendation, the Managing Director ordered Dubey’s immediate reinstatement and directed that the period of suspension be treated as duty for all purposes.
The development came amid a wider dispute between JPDCL management and power employees and engineers. The employees had gone on strike on August 13 over, among other issues, suspension orders. Following post-midnight negotiations, JPDCL revoked the suspension orders of six employees and the employees called off their indefinite strike on August 14.
The JPDCL management had earlier stated that a committee would examine the suspension cases and that action would be taken on the basis of the findings.
DySP Jasrotia case: Nearly nine months, inquiry still under question
In sharp contrast is the case of DySP Sunil Singh Jasrotia, who was suspended by the J&K Government through Government Order No. 541-Home of 2025 dated November 13, 2025, under Rule 31(1) of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1956, pending inquiry. Jasrotia, then SDPO Gandhi Nagar, was suspended following allegations concerning an altercation with JKAS officer and then BDO Nagrota Azhar Khan during the period of election duty. The allegations against the police officer have been reported publicly, while the disciplinary proceedings are yet to reach a conclusion. The officer has remained attached to Police Headquarters during suspension.
The case subsequently reached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu Bench.
In June 2026, the Tribunal was informed that the memorandum, articles of charge and statement of imputations had been served on January 27, 2026, but effective progress in the departmental inquiry had not taken place. The Government informed the Tribunal that one appointed Inquiry Officer had declined to conduct the inquiry for personal reasons and another officer subsequently appointed also declined.
On July 6, the CAT expressed concern over the prolonged suspension without commencement of the departmental inquiry and granted the Government a final opportunity to file its reply and take concrete steps to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings.
From November 13, 2025 to August 14, 2026, the suspension has continued for 274 days — nearly nine months.
“Why different clocks for disciplinary action?”
The contrasting timelines have now become a matter of discussion among sections of civil society and retired police personnel.The question being raised is not whether an employee should face disciplinary action when allegations are serious. Rather, the concern is whether every employee facing suspension is entitled to a prompt, transparent and time-bound inquiry, irrespective of the department to which he or she belongs.
A retired police officer, speaking on the issue, expressed concern over what he described as the prolonged uncertainty faced by police personnel.According to the retired officer, police personnel in J&K routinely work under exceptionally difficult conditions, including anti-militancy operations, counter-terror duties, protection of vital installations, law-and-order challenges and action against organised drug networks. “When a police officer is suspended, the inquiry should be completed within a reasonable and clearly defined timeline. Keeping an officer in uncertainty for months without substantive progress can affect morale,” the retired officer observed.
He said that disciplinary accountability and protection of employees’ rights should go together, adding that neither an officer facing allegations nor the department should be made to wait indefinitely for a final determination.
Civil society seeks uniform standards
The issue has also raised a broader question about the functioning of departmental accountability mechanisms in the UT. The recent PDD episode has demonstrated that suspension-related grievances can move rapidly when departmental committees are constituted, reports are submitted and management engages with employee representatives. On the other hand, the Jasrotia case has seen the CAT itself flag the problem of prolonged suspension without commencement of the inquiry.
Importantly, this comparison does not establish that the two cases are legally identical or that the allegations against the employees are comparable. The circumstances, departments and disciplinary authorities are different.
But the contrasting timelines raise a legitimate administrative question: Should there be a uniform time-bound mechanism for completing departmental inquiries against suspended employees across the J&K administration?
Civil society voices argue that if an inquiry is warranted, it should be conducted fairly and swiftly; if allegations are proved, appropriate punishment should follow, and if they are not established, the employee should not remain under prolonged suspension merely because the inquiry machinery has failed to move.
The larger question: Accountability must be time-bound
The controversy therefore goes beyond one suspended DySP or a group of PDD employees.
It raises questions about whether the J&K administration needs a clearly defined monitoring mechanism under which every suspension is periodically reviewed, Inquiry Officers are appointed without delay, replacements are made immediately if an officer declines an assignment, and departmental proceedings are completed within prescribed timelines.
The CAT has already highlighted the concern in the Jasrotia matter.For a police force operating in a sensitive Union Territory, the issue assumes added significance. Police officers are expected to take difficult decisions in the field and remain available round the clock for public safety and security. At the same time, allegations of misconduct cannot be ignored and must be examined independently.
The real test, therefore, is not whether a suspended employee belongs to the police, power department or any other government organisation.
The test is whether the same principles of fairness, accountability, transparency and time-bound justice apply equally to every government employee in Jammu and Kashmir.
That is the question the administration, senior police leadership and civil society may now need to answer: If one departmental inquiry can be completed and a suspension revoked within days, why should another suspended government officer remain in limbo for nearly nine months without a completed inquiry?
