Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 817 (HP)

BHARAT BHUSHAN v. HP STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

2014-06-30

PIAR SINGH RANA

body2014
ORDER : PIAR SINGH RANA, J. 1. Present Civil Writ Petition filed by the petitioner pleaded therein that petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer (Electrical) with the respondent department the then HP State Electricity Board in the year 1977 and joined on 28.4.1977. It is further pleaded that petitioner was promoted on out of turn basis as Assistant Engineer (E) vide order dated 18.11.1995 and further he was posted in Rongtong Power House Sub Division Rangrik in District Lahaul & Spiti. It is further pleaded that promotion was made in view of the scheme for tribal areas. It is further pleaded that a criminal complaint was filed against the petitioner and he was reverted to the post of Junior Engineer and was posted at Electrical Division Chamba vide order dated 14.9.1999. It is further pleaded that no charge sheet or inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and subsistence allowance was granted to the petitioner and thereafter subsistence allowance was also increased. It is further pleaded that thereafter headquarter of the petitioner was shifted from Chamba to Shimla. It is further pleaded that criminal FIR was also lodged against the petitioner. It is further pleaded that petitioner filed several representations before the respondents that he should be reinstated but the petitioner was not reinstated. Hence petitioner filed present writ petition. 2. Per contra reply filed on behalf of the respondents pleaded therein that petitioner was suspended on account of registration of FIR No. 33 of 2000 dated 28.9.2000 against the petitioner under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is further pleaded that petitioner also remained in police custody w.e.f. 1.10.2001 to 16.11.2001 and consequently the petitioner was placed under suspension by Chief Engineer (OP) South HP State Electricity Board vide order No. CEO/CA-Confd-suspension/99-2565-71 dated 15.9.1999. It is further pleaded that petitioner was not promoted due to pendency of criminal case against him. It is further pleaded that petitioner was reinstated on dated 27.6.2013 by Chief Engineer (OP) South HPSEB Shimla-171004. It is further pleaded that suspension of the petitioner was revoked by Chief Engineer (OP) South HP State Electricity Board Shimla on dated 27th June, 2013 and provisional pension has been sanctioned by Sr. Executive Engineer City Electrical Division HPSEBL Shimla amounting to Rs. It is further pleaded that suspension of the petitioner was revoked by Chief Engineer (OP) South HP State Electricity Board Shimla on dated 27th June, 2013 and provisional pension has been sanctioned by Sr. Executive Engineer City Electrical Division HPSEBL Shimla amounting to Rs. 4095/-(Rupee Four thousand ninety five) per month for a period of six months w.e.f. 1st July 2013 to 31st December, 2013 vide letter No. HPSEBL/CED/Pension/2013-8784-89 dated 8.1.2014. Prayer for dismissal of the petition sought. 3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the parties at length and also perused personal file of the official carefully. 4. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is legally entitled for the entire salary along with all emoluments for the suspension period in view of revocation of suspension order is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that gratuity and pension are the earned benefit of any employee and right to receive pension is in the nature of property. It is also well settled law that pension and gratuity are not bounty. It is well settled law that right to property cannot be taken away without due process of law as per provision of Constitution of India. It is well settled law that denying the petitioner to receive pension and gratuity benefits effects the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Constitution of India. It is proved on record that suspension of the petitioner was revoked by the Competent Authority of law on dated 27th June 2013 vide letter No. CEO/Confd. Suspension/13-2112-15. It is held that after revocation of suspension of the petitioner he is legally entitled for all monetary salary and emoluments relating to entire suspension period. 5. Another submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for promotional benefit is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that petitioner was suspended when he remained in police custody w.e.f. 1.10.2001 to 16.11.2001 in connection with FIR No. 33 of 2000 dated 28.9.2000 registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is proved on record that petitioner was suspended when he remained in police custody w.e.f. 1.10.2001 to 16.11.2001 in connection with FIR No. 33 of 2000 dated 28.9.2000 registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Court is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to grant promotional benefit to the petitioner in the present case till conclusion of the criminal trial by the Competent Court of law. 6. Submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents that in view of the pendency of criminal case registered against the petitioner under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act vide FIR No. 33 of 2000 dated 28.9.2000 the civil writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that accused is presumed to be innocent till convicted by the Competent Court of law. As of today there is no evidence on record in order to prove that petitioner has been convicted by the Competent Court of law. Respondents did not place on record any judgment and sentence of conviction against the petitioner. It is well settled law that fundamental right of an individual suspended only after conviction from the Competent Court of law. In the absence of any conviction on record in the present case it is not expedient in the ends of justice to suspend the fundamental rights of the petitioner as of today. 7. In view of the above stated facts the writ petition is partly allowed and it is ordered that respondents will release the entire salary along with all monetary benefits to the petitioner during the period he remained under suspension after adjusting the amount already paid for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) and it is further ordered that pension and gratuity of the petitioner for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) will not be withheld till the petitioner is convicted by the Competent Court of law. It is held that monetary benefit will only be suspended after conviction from Competent Court of law and not otherwise. Petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. It is held that monetary benefit will only be suspended after conviction from Competent Court of law and not otherwise. Petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. All miscellaneous application(s) are also disposed of.