Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1720 (ALL)

SHIV MURTI LAL SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-08-06

RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. 1. Heard Sri Rishi Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.C. Pathak, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.12.1999, passed by the District Commandant, Homeguards, Pratapgarh, opposite party No.3, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service only three days before his retirement/ superannuation. The petitioner has also prayed that the opposite parties be directed not to give effect the aforesaid impugned order dated 27.12.1999 and thereby the petitioner be paid his consequential benefits e.g. entire retiral benefits as well as arrears thereof. 3. The short question involved in this writ petition is that as to whether the punishment order, more precisely, the major punishment order, would be said to be a valid and legal punishment order if it is based on faulty departmental inquiry wherein neither the relied upon the documents had been provided nor any date, time and place for oral inquiry was fixed and no oral inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer? 4. The brief facts for adjudication of the issue are that the petitioner was appointed on 15.12.1965 on the post of Clerk-cum-Typist in the Homeguard Department and at the time of issuance of the dismissal order dated 27.12.1999 he was posted on the post of Junior Clerk at District-Pratapgarh. The date of retirement of the petitioner was 31.12.1999. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the last two years of his service at Pratapgarh, the petitioner was being harassed and penalized by Sri Kanhaiya Lal the then District Commandant, Pratapgarh for no rhyme or reason as the petitioner was absolutely unknown about the reason of his annoyance, the then Commandant has not only passed an unwarranted order dated 19.10.1997 transferring the petitioner from District-Pratapgarh to Headquarter, Lucknow but also by means of subsequent order dated 19.10.1997 he placed the petitioner under suspension. Both the aforesaid orders have been annexed as Annexure Nos.2 and 3 to the writ petition. 6. Both the aforesaid orders have been annexed as Annexure Nos.2 and 3 to the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the charges so levelled in the suspension order were false and baseless on the face of it inasmuch as the charge No.1 reads that the petitioner has allegedly misleaded the department regarding his date of birth, whereas the petitioner had already been absolved from the aforesaid charge on 05.12.1996 and the order dated 05.12.1996 to that effect has also been enclosed as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition as has been passed by the same officer, even though the charge to that effect was levelled against the petitioner, which shows the malafide on the part of the then Commandant. 7. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the then Commandant has transferred the petitioner vide order dated 24.10.1997 to District-Paurigarhwal and relieving order was issued on the same date i.e. 24.10.1997. 8. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid suspension order dated 19.10.1997 and the transfer order dated 24.10.1997, the petitioner filed writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.6502 (S/S) of 1997. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.6 of the writ petition, which is an interim order dated 27.11.1997 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6502 (S/S) of 1997. By means of the aforesaid order, this Court was pleased to stay the suspension order dated 19.10.1997 as well as the transfer order dated 24.10.1997. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that despite the aforesaid order being passed by this Court, the then Commandant did not reinstate the petitioner in service and kept him under suspension for substantial period. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.8 of the writ petition, which is an F.I.R. dated 04.01.1998 lodged by the then Commandant against the petitioner under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 409 I.P.C. bearing Crime No.8 of 1998, Police Station-Kotwali Sadar, District-Pratapgarh. The petitioner assailed the aforesaid F.I.R. before this Court by way of writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.323 (M/B) of 1998 and this Court vide order dated 05.02.1998 was pleaded to grant an interim order staying the arrest of the petitioner. The petitioner assailed the aforesaid F.I.R. before this Court by way of writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.323 (M/B) of 1998 and this Court vide order dated 05.02.1998 was pleaded to grant an interim order staying the arrest of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit annexing therewith Annexure No.SA-1 which is the judgment and order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh acquitting the petitioner from all the charges which were levelled against him in pursuance to the aforesaid charge-sheet which was filed on the basis of First Information Report. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in compliance of interim order dated 27.11.1997 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6502 (S/S) of 1997, the petitioner was permitted to submit his joining at District-Pratapgarh on 16.07.1998 but he was again placed under suspension vide order dated 24.07.1998 without having any cogent reason to that effect. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed the supplementary affidavit dated 31.07.2017 annexing therewith a true / photocopy of the charge-sheet dated 01.09.1998 issued to the petitioner by the Inquiry Officer/ District Commandant, Homeguards, Allahabad. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure Nos.15 & 16 of the writ petition, whereby the petitioner had demanded the copies of the relied upon the documents and also the copies of other relevant documents as the petitioner has indicated those documents vide serial nos.1 to 12 of his representation dated 12.11.1998 (Annexure No.16) and also requested that he be provided an opportunity of cross-examination to the then Commandant, one Sri Shiv Ram Singh Yadav, Sri Mohan Lal Maurya, Sri Harishankar Singh Store Keeper, Smt. Sarojini Devi, B.O. along with Sri Parmanand Rajpati Dwivedi, Ram Sewak and other persons who had broken the lock of Almirah which was very well within the possession of the petitioner. 15. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the petitioner preferred representations after representation to the Inquiry Officer, which are contained as Annexure No.17 to 31 of the writ petition for asking the copies of the relevant documents and seeking an opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses naming their specific names, but to no avail as the petitioner has not been provided the copies of the relied upon documents and other relevant documents and he has not been afforded an opportunity for cross-examination of the witnesses as no date, time and place was fixed for conducting oral inquiry. Therefore, he has submitted that the aforesaid lapse on the part of the Inquiry Officer vitiates the entire inquiry proceedings. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that specific averments to that effect have been made in paras-34, 35 and 41-A to 41-D of the writ petition that neither he has been given copies of relied upon documents and other relevant documents nor he has been afforded an opportunity of cross-examination nor the list of witnesses was provided to the petitioner nor any specific date, time and place was fixed by the Inquiry Officer and the inquiry report was prepared with the collusion of the Disciplinary Authority having malafide intention on their mind. 17. In the counter affidavit, no specific reply to the contents of paras-34, 35 and 41-A to 41-D of the writ petition has been given by the answering opposite party. Only this much has been indicated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has been given ample opportunity by the Inquiry Officer, but as to how such opportunity was given to the petitioner has not been indicated in the counter affidavit. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.32 of the writ petition, which is inquiry report dated 06.02.1999 and perusal thereof reveals that no date, time and place was fixed by the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of cross-examination and the recommendation for dismissal of the petitioner was made. In the inquiry report, four charges were dealt with, out of which, the petitioner had been absolved from the charge No.1 regarding date of birth, as discussed above. So far as charge Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, the petitioner was acquitted by the criminal court as F.I.R. for those charges were levelled against the petitioner. In the inquiry report, four charges were dealt with, out of which, the petitioner had been absolved from the charge No.1 regarding date of birth, as discussed above. So far as charge Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, the petitioner was acquitted by the criminal court as F.I.R. for those charges were levelled against the petitioner. Only a second charge was there which alleged that the petitioner had not violate the direction of the Superior Officer. The record reveals that the petitioner was harassed by the then authority concerned inasmuch as despite the specific interim order being granted in favour of the petitioner, he was reinstated in service after a substantial lapse of time and within a short span of time he was again placed under suspension. 19. The punishment order dated 27.12.1999 itself reveals that the petitioner was provided some of the demanded documents on 01.10.1999 at the stage of show cause notice, meaning thereby it is an admitted position that the petitioner was not provided the demanded documents on or before 06.02.1999 when the Inquiry Officer had submitted his inquiry report. 20. On account of the aforesaid admitted position that the petitioner was provided the demanded documents at the stage of show cause on 01.10.1999 whereas the Inquiry Officer concluded his inquiry and has submitted report on 06.02.1999, the entire inquiry vitiates. When the demanded documents were not provided to the petitioner at the time of inquiry so as to take his defence, some of documents which have been provided thereafter at the stage of show cause notice, were of no avail for the petitioner as he could have not used those documents in his defence for the reason that the inquiry has already been concluded. Further, neither the inquiry report dated 06.02.1999 nor the punishment order dated 27.11.1999 reveal that oral inquiry was ever conduced or the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to examine/ cross-examine the witnesses, therefore, the inquiry in the matter may not be said to be inquiry done strictly in accordance with law and thereby the impugned punishment order may not be said to be a valid punishment order. Further, the manner under which the punishment order has been passed just before four days of the retirement of the petitioner is also deprecated as due to said punishment order the petitioner could not be his post retiral benefits for about 19 years and the survival of a Class-III employee and his family without payment of post retiral benefit might have been very difficult. 21. The learned counsel for the opposite parties could not dispute that before imposing major penalty, the inquiry, necessary for major penalty, prescribed under Rules must have been conducted which admittedly, has not been conducted in the case in hand. Before imposing the major penalty, oral inquiry is must as laid down in catena of judgments. 22. In Meenglas Tea Estate v. The workmen., AIR 1963 SC 1719 , the Supreme Court observed "It is an elementary principle that a person who is required to answer a charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. He must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way to cross-examination as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. This is the barest requirement of an enquiry of this character and this requirement must be substantially fulfilled before the result of the enquiry can be accepted. 23. In State of U.P. v. C. S. Sharma, AIR 1968 SC 158 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that omission to give opportunity to the officer to produce his witnesses and lead evidence in his defence vitiates the proceedings. The Court also held that in the enquiry witnesses have to be examined in support of the allegations, and opportunity has to be given to the delinquent to cross-examine these witnesses and to lead evidence in his defence. 24. In Punjab National Bank v. A.I.P.N.B.E. Federation, AIR 1960 SC 160 , (vide para 66), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in such enquiries evidence must be recorded in the presence of the charge-sheeted employee and he must be given an opportunity to rebut the said evidence. The same view was taken in A.C.C. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1963) II LLJ. 396, and in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1963) II LLJ. 78 (SC). 25. The same view was taken in A.C.C. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1963) II LLJ. 396, and in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1963) II LLJ. 78 (SC). 25. In S.C. Girotra v. United Commercial Bank 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 212, the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside a dismissal order which was passed without giving employee an opportunity of cross-examination. 26. This Court in Subhas Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another, 2000(1) UPLBEC 541 has held as under:- "In our opinion after the petitioner replied to the charge-sheet a date should have been fixed for the enquiry and the petitioner should have been intimated the date, time and place of the enquiry and on that date the oral and documentary evidence against the petitioner should have been led in his presence and he should have been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him and also he should have been given an opportunity to produce his own witnesses and evidence. If the petitioner in response to this intimation had failed to appear for the enquiry then an ex parte enquiry should have been held but the petitioner's service should have not been terminated without holding an enquiry. In the present case it appears that no regular enquiry was held at all. All that was done that after receipt of the petitioner's reply to the charge-sheet he was given a show-cause notice and thereafter the dismissal order was passed. In our opinion this was not the correct legal procedure and there was violation of the rules of natural justice. Since no date for enquiry was fixed nor any enquiry held in which evidence was led in our opinion the impugned order is clearly violative of natural justice." (emphasis added) 27. In the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported (2010) 2 SCC 772 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that :- "An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/ disciplinary authority/ Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service." (emphasis added) 28. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 as under:- "Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence." (emphasis added) 29. In another case in Subhash Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P., 2012 (1) UPLBEC 166 the Division Bench of this Court after survey of law on this issue observed as under: "It is well settled that when the statute provides to do a thing in a particular manner that thing has to be done in that very manner. In another case in Subhash Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P., 2012 (1) UPLBEC 166 the Division Bench of this Court after survey of law on this issue observed as under: "It is well settled that when the statute provides to do a thing in a particular manner that thing has to be done in that very manner. We are of the considered opinion that any punishment awarded on the basis of an enquiry not conducted in accordance with the enquiry rules meant for that very purposes is unsustainable in the eye of law. We are further of the view that the procedure prescribed under the inquiry rules for imposing major penalty is mandatory in nature and unless those procedures are followed, any out come inferred thereon will be of no avail unless the charges are so glaring and unrefutable which does not require any proof. The view taken by us find support from the judgment of the Apex Court in State of U.P. & another Vs. T.P.Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831 as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Subash Chandra Sharma Vs. Managing Director & another, 2000 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 541 . 30. A Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Salahuddin Ansari Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (3) ESC 1667 held that non holding of oral inquiry is a serious flaw which can vitiate the order of disciplinary proceeding including the order of punishment has observed as under:- "10....... Non holding of oral inquiry in such a case, is a serious matter and goes to the root of the case. 11.A Division Bench of this Court in Subash Chandra Sharma Vs. Managing Director & another, 2000 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 541 , considering the question as to whether holding of an oral inquiry is necessary or not, held that if no oral inquiry is held, it amounts to denial of principles of natural justice to the delinquent employee. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Subash Chandra Sharma Vs. U.P.Cooperative Spinning Mills & others, 2001 (2) U.P.L.B.E.C. 1475 and Laturi Singh Vs U.P.Public Service Tribunal & others, Writ Petition No. 12939 of 2001, decided on 06.05.2005." (emphasis added) 31. Even if the employee refuses to participate in the enquiry the employer cannot straightaway dismiss him, but he must hold and ex-parte enquiry where evidence must be led vide Imperial Tobacco Co. Even if the employee refuses to participate in the enquiry the employer cannot straightaway dismiss him, but he must hold and ex-parte enquiry where evidence must be led vide Imperial Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, AIR 1962 SC 1348 , Uma Shankar v. Registrar, 1992 (65) FLR 674 (All). 32. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahesh Narain Gupta v. State of U.P. and others, (2011) 2 ILR 570 has held as under:- "At this stage, we are to observe that in the disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent, the department is just like a plaintiff and initial burden lies on the department to prove the charges which can certainly be proved only by collecting some oral evidence or documentary evidence, in presence and notice charged employee. Even if the department is to rely its own record/document which are already available, then also the enquiry officer by looking into them and by assigning his own reason after analysis, will have to record a finding that hose documents are sufficient enough to prove the charges. In no case, approach of the Enquiry Officer that as no reply has been submitted, the charge will have to be automatically proved can be approved. This will be erroneous. It has been repeatedly said that disciplinary authority has a right to proceed against delinquent employee in exparte manner but some evidence will have to be collected and justification to sustain the charges will have to be stated in detail. The approach of the enquiry officer of automatic prove of charges on account of non filing of reply is clearly misconceived and erroneous. This is against the principle of natural justice, fair play, fair hearing and, thus, enquiry officer has to be cautioned in this respect." (emphasis added) 33. Recently the entire law on the subject has been reviewed and reiterated in Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Raghunath Singh Rana and others, AIR 2016 SC 2510 and the Hon'ble Apex Court has culled out certain principles as under: "(i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. Raghunath Singh Rana and others, AIR 2016 SC 2510 and the Hon'ble Apex Court has culled out certain principles as under: "(i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. (ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the Enquiry Officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer. (iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him. (iv) On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any." 34. The principal of law emanates from the above judgments are that initial burden is on the department to prove the charges. In case of procedure adopted for inflicting major penalty, the department must prove the charges by oral evidence also. 35. From perusal of inquiry report, it is demonstrably proved that no oral evidence has been led by the department. When a major punishment is proposed to be passed the department has to prove the charges against the delinquent/employee by examining the witnesses and by documentary evidence. In the present case no witness was examined by the department neither any officer has been examined to prove the documents in the proceedings. 36. It is trite law that the departmental proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings. The Inquiry Officer functions as quasi judicial officer. He is not merely a representative of the department. He has to act as an independent and impartial officer to find out the truth. 36. It is trite law that the departmental proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings. The Inquiry Officer functions as quasi judicial officer. He is not merely a representative of the department. He has to act as an independent and impartial officer to find out the truth. The major punishment awarded to an employee visit serious civil consequences and as such the departmental proceedings ought to be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Even if, an employee prefers not to participate in enquiry the department has to establish the charges against the employee by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence. In case charges warrant major punishment then the oral evidence by producing the witnesses is necessary. 37. So far as the factum of continuity of service and back wages is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others reported in (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 324 has held that in the case of wrongful termination of service, the reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule. The para 22 of the aforesaid judgment is being reproduced herein below : "22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies tha the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer-employee relationship, the latter's source of income gets dried up. Not only the employee concerned, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial / quasi-judicial body or court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him / her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. The denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the employee concerned and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments." Vide para 38.5 of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Deepali Kundu Surwase (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under : "38.5. The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and / or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimising the employee or workman, then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer's obligation to pay the same. In such cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer's obligation to pay the same. The courts must always keep in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give a premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages." 38. In views of the aforesaid settled proposition of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court and also in the light of factual and legal matrix of the issue, as discussed herein above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed. 39. The impugned order dated 27.12.1999 passed by the District Commandant, Homeguards, Pratapgarh (opposite party No.3), whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service (Annexure No.1) is quashed. 40. The opposite parties are commanded that the petitioner be paid his entire retiral benefits e.g. pension, G.P.F., gratuity, G.I.S. and leave encashment etc. ignoring the dismissal order dated 27.12.1999. The opposite parties are also directed to pay the arrears of subsistence allowance to the petitioner for his entire suspension period and he shall be treated in service as his continuity in service shall be maintained. However, no back wages shall be granted to the petitioner for the reason that dismissal order has been issued on 27.12.1999 and his date of retirement was 31.12.1999, so no fruitful purpose would be served in granting back wages to the petitioner. 41. Since the petitioner was retired from service on 31.12.1999 as about 19 years period have passed, therefore, the aforesaid benefits shall be given to the petitioner forthwith, say within a maximum period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled for the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on entire service benefits as provided above. It is also clarified that since about 19 years period have lapsed from the retirement of the petitioner, therefore, no departmental inquiry shall be conducted against the petitioner.