Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1807 (RAJ)

Indra Raj Barupal v. The State of Rajasthan

2011-08-25

GOVIND MATHUR

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - By an order dated 03.11.2000, the petitioner was placed under suspension, on being arrested, while making investigation under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1988). The competent authority also allowed subsistence allowance to the petitioner as per Rule 53 (1) (a) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred as the Rules of 1951) under an order dated 01.9.2001. The petitioner then was subjected to a criminal trial for the offences punishable under Section 7 & 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act of 1988. 2. The trial court vide judgment dated 10.2.2003, acquitted the petitioner from all the charges. Subsequent thereto, vide order dated 10.7.2003, the Collector (Land Record), Sri Ganganagar reinstated the petitioner on the post, he was holding substantively. A request was made by the petitioner, after reinstatement in service, to release his complete salary and also the annual grade increments for the period, he remained under suspension i.e. from 03.11.2000 to 10.7.2003. The officer in-charge (Land Record Section) Collectorate, Sri Ganganagar, vide communication Annexure/5 conveyed to the Tehsildar (Land Record) Shadulshahar that the case of the petitioner for grant of regular annual grade increments shall be considered, only after disposal of the appeal pending consideration against the judgment given by the trial court dated 10.2.2003. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after acquittal of the petitioner from the charges pertaining to the offence punishable under the Act of 1988, no reason exits to justify the suspension made under order dated 03.11.2000 and thus, the petitioner is entitled for complete wages and also for getting the annual grade increments, for which the petitioner is otherwise entitled in view of Rule 29 of the Rules of 1951. 5. Per contra, the stand of the respondents is that the acquittal of the petitioner is not final as an appeal is yet pending consideration before the Appellate Court and, therefore, no final decision with regard to grant of salary for the period the petitioner was suspended and for release of annual grade increments can be taken.Heard learned counsel for the parties.7. So far as the grant of salary for the period petitioner faced suspension beyond the subsistence allowance already paid is required to be considered by competent authority as per Rule 54 of the Rules of 1951. Merely on the count that the petitioner has been acquitted, it cannot be said that the suspension made under order dated 03.11.2000 was not at all justified. The justifiability of an order of suspension depends on several factors and those are required to be considered by the competent authority, as such, issue with regard to grant of pay to the petitioner for the period he remained under suspension beyond the payment of subsistence allowance is required to be decided by the competent authority, as per Rule 54 of the Rules of 1951 and not by the writ court. However, so far as the release of annual grade increments is concerned, suffice it to mention that as per Rule 29 of the Rules of 1951 those are required to be released as right, if not otherwise withheld as a consequent to disciplinary action. In the instant matter, it is the position admitted that no disciplinary action has been taken against the petitioner by the respondent employer.8. In these circumstances, I do not find any just reason for not releasing the annual grade increment of the petitioner for the period commencing from 03.11.2000 to 10.7.2003.9. For the reasons given above, this petition for writ deserves to be acceptance, accordingly, the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to release annual grade increments of the petitioner, those were detained because of his placement under suspension vide order dated 03.11.2000. As a consequent to release of the annual grade increments, necessary fixation of the petitioner's pay is also required to be made by the respondents expeditiously, as far as possible, within the period of three months from today. The respondents are also required to make payment of arrears accruing to the petitioner as a consequent to the release of annual grade increments. The arrears accruing as such are required to be paid to the petitioner with interest @ 6% per annum within the period of one month after making necessary fixation of the petitioner's pay. The respondents are also required to make payment of arrears accruing to the petitioner as a consequent to the release of annual grade increments. The arrears accruing as such are required to be paid to the petitioner with interest @ 6% per annum within the period of one month after making necessary fixation of the petitioner's pay. The competent authority is further directed to consider and decide claim of the petitioner with regard to grant of the salary beyond subsistence allowance for the period the petitioner remained under suspension i.e. from 03.11.2000 to 10.7.2003 within a period of three months from today.No order as to cost.Petition allowed. *******