AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of learned single Judge dated 11.2.1988 allowing the writ petition of the respondent
herein.
The respondent was placed under suspension under an order issued by the Government on 12.12.1973. Thereafter, Deputy Commissioner
Kathua was directed by the Government to hold enquiry against him. The Deputy Commissioner Kathua hold such enquiry and exonerated the
respondent. The operative part of the finding of the Deputy Commissioner is as under :
I found that whole incident is more a fear psychoses on the part of ANN. She should have considered all the factors when she agreed to
accompany the doctor on an official tour at about 8 P. M. If she felt that the doctor had had motives she had every opportunity to refuse to go with
the doctor and rather approach the local vaid at Durang. Besides there is nothing in the conduct of the doctor to show that he really misbehaved
with the said ANM. In view of these facts I do not find that the charges so levelled against the said doctor S.K. Abrol are substantiated.
It seems that the Government on getting report from the Deputy Commissioner Kathua issued order on 4.3.1978 reinstating the respondent, but
the period of his suspension was ordered to be treated as leave of whatever kind due to him.
Aggrieved by the second part of the order regarding treating his leave of whatever kind, the respondent filed a writ petition and learned Single
Judge while allowing the writ petition quashed the abovesaid portion of the Govt. order and further directed to treat the period of respondent's
suspension form 12.12.1973 to 4.3.1978 as spent on duty, thereby allowing him ail the conrequential benefits of drawal of pay and other
emoluments.
The respondent herein was proceeded exparte vide order of this Court dated 27.6.1991.
We have heard Mr. P.R. Sharma, learned Addl. Advocate General at length and have also perused the record produced before us.
Admittedly the respondent was absolved of all the charges levelled against him in an enquiry held by the Deputy Commissioner Kathua. It
appears that the Government accepted that finding of the Deputy Commissioner and reinstated the respondent.
The relevant rule which would govern such like case is 108 (A) (B) (ii) of the C.S.R. with reads as under:
Where the authority mentioned in sub rule (I) is of the opinion that the Government servant has been fully exonerated or in case of suspension, it
was wholly unjustified, the Govt. servant shall be given the full pay and allowance to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed,
removed, compulsorily retired before attaining the age of superannuation or suspended, as the case may be, the period of absence from duty shall
be treated as period spent on duty.
The wording of this Rule is clear and does not require any interpretation, when a Government servant is fully exonerated of the charges framed
against him, the period of his suspension is to be treated as period spent on duty.
Mr. Sharma, learned Addl. A. G. has laid stress that the respondent remained absent during his suspension and also did not cooperate during
the enquiry and according to him such facts did not entitle a government official to claim the benefit of the abovesaid Rule.
We do not find any substance in this argument of Mr. Sharma. From the report of the Deputy Commissioner it appears that charges were
framed against the respondent and detailed enquiry con ducted. During enquiry there is not an iota of evidence that respondent did not cooperate
with the Enquiry Officer. On the other hand the enquiry report, which is in detail, reveals that the respondent had participated in whole of the
proceedings.
For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed without making any order as to costs.