Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 118 (HP)

TEK CHAND SHARMA v. STATE OF H. P.

2003-05-23

NARINDER SINGH THAKUR

body2003
JUDGMENT Narinder Thakur, Vice Chairman: This application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The applicant has prayed for, inter-alia for the following relief (s): 2. (i) That the impugned orders dated 26.6.1999 at Annexure A-10 and order dated 25.11.2003 and 13.6.2001, Annexure A-12 and A-14 may be quashed and set aside and fort the period of absence the respondent department may be directed to regularize the same by granting leave of the kind due, with all consequential benefits. (ii) That the period of suspension with effect from 4.11.1997 to 23.3.1998 may be directed to be treated as on duty and respondent department may be directed to release full pay and allowances for this period. (iii) That the impugned inquiry report, which has been made the basis for imposition of the impugned punishment on the applicant may also be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits. 3. In the present case the applicant was charge sheeted under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules and also placed under suspension. He was ultimately awarded penalty of with-holding of one increment without cumulative effect, which is undisputably a minor punishment But in the impugned order, Annexure A-10, while imposing the said punishment, the period of absence from duty has been treated as dies -on. In . reply to the prayer made by the applicant in para 7 (ii) of the original application to treat the period suspension as on duty no specific reply has been given Even in reply to the grounds 6.10.5 and 6.10 (6) the respondents have not denied that even the period of suspension of the applicant has been treated as dies-non. Thus it is clear that vide the impugned order at Annexure A-10, to the original application even the period of suspension of the applicant has been treated as dies non. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional advocate General for the respondents and have gone through their pleadings carefully. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the applicant has confined his relief only to the period of suspension and did not press for other reliefs. 5. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional advocate General for the respondents and have gone through their pleadings carefully. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the applicant has confined his relief only to the period of suspension and did not press for other reliefs. 5. The short controversy which survives for consideration in the present application is that when an employee is charge sheeted for major misconduct and is also put under suspension pending such inquiry, but ultimately awarded only a minor punishment, whether the period of his suspension can be treated as on duty with all consequential benefits." 6. As per Government of India Department of Personnel and Training, office memorandum dated 3.12. 1985, copy of which is placed on record 8S Annexure A-15 and which appears in Swamys complication of FR SR, Part-1, General Rules Below FR 54 54-B, if an employee who has been charge sheeted for a major punishment is ultimately awarded minor punishment only, then the period of suspension has to be treated as wholly unjustified and consequently has to be treated as on duty and employee is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period of suspension. Even a Division Bench of this Tribunal in a similar case delivered judgment on 9.9.1996 in original Application No. 1162/1995 titled as Kuldeep Singh Vs. HPSEB and ors, Annexure A-15 of the original application, wherein this Tribunal has held that if in a departmental enquiry employee is ultimately awarded minor punishment, then the period of suspension has to be treated as on duty. 7. In the light of clear declaration of law by this Tribunal and also the instructions on the subject the respondent department is bound to treat the period of suspension of applicant as on duty and consequently applicant is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period i.e. from 4.11.1997 to 23.3.1998. Even otherwise in order at Annexure A-10 the only reference is made to the period of absence from duty and nothing has been said for the period when applicant remained under suspension. Absence from duty is not the same thing as the period of suspension. Even otherwise in order at Annexure A-10 the only reference is made to the period of absence from duty and nothing has been said for the period when applicant remained under suspension. Absence from duty is not the same thing as the period of suspension. As such the respondent department is bound to treat the period of suspension as on duty as only minor punishment was awarded to the applicant It is also settled position of law by the Honble Apex Court that the courts/Tribunal are bound by the judicial discipline which is to be maintained, in the similarly situated case titled as Kuldeep Singh, supra, same facts and law were involved, which has been decided by a Division Bench of this Tribunal and the present original application is also fully covered by that judgment. In view of these premises, the original application is partly allowed. Respondents are directed to treat the applicant on duty for the period of suspension from 4.11.1997 to 23.3.1993 and he is entitled to all the consequential benefits interims of salary etc. in accordance with the rules Respondents are further directed to do the needful within a period of two months from the date of this order. 8. The original application stands finally disposed of in the light of above. No order as to costs