Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 582 (JHR)

Pratap Narayan Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2001-08-22

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2001
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhya, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the penal order dated 6th October. 1987 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, as also the appellate order dated 20th January, 2001, passed by the Commissioner, south Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi. 2. By original order, while the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga dropped the departmental proceeding, ordered that the petitioner will not receive any salary for the period of suspension, except the subsistence allowance. The appellate authority. Commissioner. South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi affirmed the original order, vide his order dated 9th January, 2001 and rejected the appeal. 3. The sole question to be determined, in the present case, is as to whether in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to full salary for the period of suspension of not. 4. The facts as not controverted by the respondents show that a criminal case was lodged against the petitioner being case No. 774/69/ TR No. 168/1979, under Section 409, IPC However, the Under Secretary. Ranchi under whom the petitioner was posted, suspended the petitioner, vide Memo No. 1165 dated 16th July, 1970 on the ground that a case under Section 363/266, IPC was lodged. The petitioner continued under suspension and a separate departmental proceeding was also lodged for almost similar charges. 5. The petitioner was acquitted in criminal proceeding by judgment dated 20th July, 1979 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class in Case No. 774/69--TR No. 16S/79. In the departmental proceeding. The Inquiring Officer submitted a report on 6th April, 1981, vide Annexure-6 and held the petitioner not guilty of the charges. Though the petitioner was acquitted in July, 1979 and was exonerated in the departmental proceeding by Inquiring Officer, vide report dated 6th April, 1981, the competent authority sat tight over the matter for about 7 to 8 years thereafter. The order of suspension was initially revoked on 17th December, 1979, but final order in the departmental proceeding was passed, vide impugned Memo No. 4089 dated 6th October, 1987, whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardagh while dropped the departmental proceeding, ordered that the petitioner will not receive any salary for the period of suspension. 6. The aforesaid facts have not been disputed by the respondents in their counter affidavit. The Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi has also taken into consideration the aforesaid fact that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case and exonerated by the competent authority. 6. The aforesaid facts have not been disputed by the respondents in their counter affidavit. The Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi has also taken into consideration the aforesaid fact that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case and exonerated by the competent authority. However, merely on the ground that the competent authority could have differed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, disallowed the appeal and failed to take into consideration the fact that the competent authority had not differed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and exonerated the petitioner by closing the departmental proceeding. 7. On reinstatement from suspension, what salary to which a person is entitled to be determined by the competent authority under Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code, 1952, Sub-rule (2) of Rule 97 stipulates, as follows : "97(2): Where the authority mentioned in Sub-rule (1), is of the opinion that the Government servant has been fully exonerated, or in the case of suspension, that it was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall be given full pay and allowance to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or suspended, as the case may be." 8. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner continued under suspension because of allegation made against him. There was no laches or delay on the part of the petitioner in the matter of disposal of criminal proceeding or the departmental enquiry. 9. The respondents in their counter affidavit have filed to give any justification to deny the salary of the period of suspension, though the suspension, in view of the finding in the criminal proceeding and departmental proceeding seems to be wholly unjustified. 10. In the facts and circumstances and for the reasons aforesaid, the Clause (1) of order dated 6th October, 1987 and the appellate order dated 9th January, 2001 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. They are, accordingly, set aside, 11. The petitioner having acquitted in the criminal proceeding and the departmental proceeding and, there being no laches on his part, is entitled for full salary for the period of suspension. 12. They are, accordingly, set aside, 11. The petitioner having acquitted in the criminal proceeding and the departmental proceeding and, there being no laches on his part, is entitled for full salary for the period of suspension. 12. The respondents are directed to fix the pay of the petitioner accordingly taking into consideration the revision of pay and after adjustment of subsistence allowance already paid and to release the arrears within three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 13. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. 14. Writ petition allowed.