Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 584 (UTT)

Raje Ram Singh v. State of U. P.

2009-11-26

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2009
Judgment By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 12-07-1994 passed by respondent No.3, whereby the salary for the period of suspension is held-up by said authority and order dated 23-03-1995 passed by respondent No.2, whereby the departmental appeal is dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavits on record. 3. Brief facts for the case are that the petitioner was posted as polite constable in 1986 at police out post Lakhibagh, Police Station Kotwali District Dehradun. During the period of his posting, he went on leave to his village Rara within the police station of Bilari, District Moradabad where a first information report was lodged against him and some of her persons relating to offences punishable under Section 332, 307 and 395IPC., which was registered as Case Crime No. 377 of 1986. On receiving the report, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the Superintendent of Police, Dehradun vide his order dated 02-01-1987. After the chargesheet was filed against the petitioner and other persons in the court at Moradabad, petitioner stood trial in Sessions Trial No. 259 of 1987. Said case was decided by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad who passed the order dated 15-05-1992, acquitting the petitioner as the charge was not found proved. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner also faced departmental inquiry under rule 14(2) of U.P. Subordinate Police Officers (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. However, no charge was found proved in the departmental enquiry against the petitioner as he had been acquitted by the Court, and vide order dated 15-02-1994 he was exonerated. Meanwhile, the petitioner had already been reinstated in service on 29-09-1992. On 30th of May, 1994, he was served with a notice as to why his unpaid salary during the period of suspension be not held up. In response to which, the petitioner submitted his reply on 08-061994. However, vide impugned order dated 12-07-1994, the Superintendent of Police, Dehraduli held up the remaining salary except the salary already paid, during suspension. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal under rule 20 of the aforesaid rules of 1991 before Deputy Inspector General of Police, Garhwal Region. Said authority also rejected the appeal vide its order dated 23-03-1995. However, vide impugned order dated 12-07-1994, the Superintendent of Police, Dehraduli held up the remaining salary except the salary already paid, during suspension. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal under rule 20 of the aforesaid rules of 1991 before Deputy Inspector General of Police, Garhwal Region. Said authority also rejected the appeal vide its order dated 23-03-1995. Challenging the two orders, it is pleaded that both the orders suffer from illegality and the petitioner is entitled to full salary of the period of suspension after he has been acquitted by the court and also exonerated of the charge in the departmental inquiry. 4. In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, it is admitted that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and he stood trial in District Moradabad. It is also admitted that he was acquitted by the Court. It is also not denied that the petitioner was exonerated of the charge in the departmental inquiry. However, defending the impugned orders, it has been stated that the reply to show cause notice was not satisfactory and as such the remaining part of salary (for the period of suspension) is rightly withheld by the authorities concerned. 5. Before further discussions, this Court thinks it just and proper, to mention here that the release of salary for the period of suspension is governed by the Fundamental Rules applicable to the government servants. Under Fundamental Rule 54B, it is provided that when a government servant who has been suspended is reinstated the authority competent to order reinstatement shall make a specific order as to whether the pay and allowances to be paid to the government servant for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement or not and as to whether the period of suspension be treated spent on duty or not. In passing such order the principle which applies is that whether there was any justification for placing the employee under suspension or not. Normally, after a person is exonerated in the departmental inquiry, remaining part of salary of the period of suspension is directed to be paid. But in the present case, the petitioner was posted at Dehradun. In passing such order the principle which applies is that whether there was any justification for placing the employee under suspension or not. Normally, after a person is exonerated in the departmental inquiry, remaining part of salary of the period of suspension is directed to be paid. But in the present case, the petitioner was posted at Dehradun. While he was on leave in his village in Moradabad, a first information report was lodged against him relating to offences punishable under section 395,332 and 307 IPC., in which a chargesheet was also filed against him and he had to face a trial in the court. He appears to have been arrested. In the circumstance, it cannot be said that there was no justification to place him under suspension. It has come on the record that the petitioner was acquitted by the court giving him benefit of reasonable doubt. 6. In the above circumstances, impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities suffer from no illegality. Therefore the writ petition is dismissed.