Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1233 (HP)

Santosh Singh v. State of H. P.

2011-03-11

RAJIV SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. He was put under suspension on 12.4.1994. The suspension was revoked on 14.3.1995. Thereafter on the basis of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority imposed minor penalty of recovery of Rs. 1,61,287/-upon the petitioner, vide order dated 18.6.2001. Petitioner made a representation on 4.9.2001 for the release of payment qua suspension period as well as annual increment. He also served a legal notice on 21.4.2004. 2. Mr. L.N. Sharma has strenuously argued that as per law, once the minor penalty has been imposed upon his client, the suspension was wholly unjustified and his client is entitled to full pay and allowances under the period of suspension, i.e. with effect from 12.4.1994 to 14.3.1995 as well as annual increment. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that since the petitioner had already assailed the penalty by way of O.A. No. 2302/2001, full pay and annual increment could not be granted to him. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. It is admitted fact that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. However, minor penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner, vide order dated 18.6.2001 whereby a sum of Rs. 1,61,287/- was to be recovered from the petitioner. 6. It will be apt at this stage to refer to Chapter - 5 Clause 5 (3) Reinstatement – A Digest “Swamy’s Compilation of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965”, which reads thus: “ (5) 3. When minor penalty is imposed. – When the departmental proceedings against a suspended employee for the imposition of a major penalty finally end with the imposition of a minor penalty, the suspension can be said to be wholly unjustified and the employee concerned should, therefore be paid full pay and allowances for the period of suspension.” 7. Since in the present case also, minor penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner, he was entitled to full pay and allowances for the period of suspension, i.e. with effect from 12.4.1994 to 14.3.1995. Since in the present case also, minor penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner, he was entitled to full pay and allowances for the period of suspension, i.e. with effect from 12.4.1994 to 14.3.1995. The action of respondents neither to pay full pay nor to grant annual increment to the petitioner is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, the action of respondent-State not to release the increment to the petitioner after the imposition of minor penalty only was also arbitrary. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. P.M. Negi that since the petitioner has assailed the imposition of penalty by way of separate original application, he was not entitled to full pay and annual increment merits rejection. 8. Petitioner was legally entitled to full pay immediately after the passing of order dated 8.6.2001. Since the petitioner has not been paid his full pay and annual increment, respondents are bound to pay reasonable interest to the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to pay full pay and allowances minus suspension allowance, if any, paid to the petitioner of the period he remained under suspension, i.e. with effect from 12.4.1994 to 14.3.1995 as well as annual increment, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. Petitioner is entitled to interest @6% per annum. No costs.