Sampatlal Tiwari vs State of Chhattisgarh and others

Hon''ble Mr. Pritinker Diwaker, J.—Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 6-4-2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 3 by which though the suspension order of the petitioner has been revoked yet a direction has been issued to pay him only 75% of the salary till decision of the case pending before the Court.

Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner who was working as Principal, Lal Bahadur Sastry Higher Secondary School, Bamnideeh, Distt. Janjgir was placed under suspension on 27-6-2008 (Annexure P-2). The suspension order of the petitioner, however, was revoked on 30-9-2008 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter, on 24-11-2008 (Annexure P-5) a letter was issued by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 3 asking it to place the petitioner under suspension again Pursuant to this direction issued by the State Government, the petitioner was again suspended by respondent No. o. 3, vide order dated 5-12-2008 (Annexure P-6). However, vide impugned order dated 6-4-2009, suspension of the petitioner has been revoked but a direction his been issued to pay him 75% of the salary only.

Contention of Shri Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that once the suspension order of the petitioner itself has been revoked, no curtailment in his salary can be made by the respondents and they have absolutely no authority to pass any such order under the law.

It has been further argued that purportedly the order has been issued in the garb of fundamental Rule 54-B (3) but even the said rule does not call for passing of such orders.

On the other hand, supporting the order impugned, it has been argued by the State Counsel that the order having been issued under Fundamental Rule 54-B is strictly in accordance with law.

Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 also supports the impugned order. He submits that the suspension order of the petitioner was revoked just because the charge-sheet could not be issued to him within 90 days from the date of his suspension.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the entire record as also the impugned order.

Fundamental Rule 54-B reads as under:--

54-B. (1) When a Government servant who has been suspended, is reinstated or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order--

(a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement or the date of his retirement on superannuation, as the case may be; and

(b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.

(2) *** *** ***

(3) Where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant, shall subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8), be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended:

Provided that where such authority is of the opinion that the termination of the proceedings instituted against the Government servant had been delayed due to reasons directly attributable to the Government servant, it may, after giving him an opportunity to make his representation within 60 days from the date on which the communication in this regard is served on him and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him direct, for reasons to be recorded in writing that the Government servant shall be paid for the period of such delay, only such amount (not being the whole) of such pay and allowances as it may determine.

(4) *** *** ***

(5) *** *** ***

(6) *** *** ***

(7) *** *** ***

(8) The payment of allowances under sub-rule (2), sub-rule (3) or under sub-rule (5), shall be subject to all other conditions under which such allowances are admissible.

From a bare reading of the above rule, it is clear that the order impugned cannot be passed based thereon. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that till the impugned order dated 6-4-2009 was passed even the charge sheet could not be issued to the petitioner rather it was issued only on 21-7-2009 (Annexure R-1). Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the proceedings have been delayed on account of any act of the petitioner. It seems that respondent No. 3 has completely misunderstood the Fundamental Rule 54-B while passing the impugned order following the provisions of the same in an undesirable fashion. It would not be out of place to mention here that once after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the suspension of the petitioner has been revoked and he is reinstated, he becomes entitled for his fully salary.

Having thus observed as above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order, so far as it relates to payment of salary to the extent of 75% is set aside and it is directed that the petitioner is entitled for his full salary from the date on which he has been reinstated as a result of revocation of his suspension.