Civil Writ Petition No. 1592 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 1592 of 2010 Date of Decision : 2.5.2011 Joginder Kapoor .......... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr. Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurav Mohunta, Assistant A.G. Punjab. Mr. RS. Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing the impugned order dated 8.1.2010 (Annexure P-2) vide which the period of suspension of the petitioner has been ordered to be treated as leave of the kind due. Counsel for the petitioner contends that while the petitioner was deployed as Inspector, he was placed under suspension on 3.10.2002. Charge-sheet was issued to him on 7.5.2003 and, thereafter, a regular enquiry was held. During the pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 27.6.2005. The Enquiry Officer vide his report dated 12.10.2004 Civil Writ Petition No. 1592 of 2010 -2- exonerated the petitioner. This report was accepted by the punishing authority. The suspension period was treated as leave of the kind due. He contends that once the petitioner has been duly exonerated of the charges in the regular enquiry held against him, the order regularizing his period of suspension by observing that it would be treated as leave of the kind due, cannot be sustained and it should be treated as period spent on duty. In support of this contention he relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. M.L. Kamra and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others 2009(6)SLR 577. Counsel for respondent No.3-Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana has tried to justify the order treating the period of suspension as leave of the kind due by submitting that there were serious charges of financial loss to the Municipal Corporation and the petitioner was exonerated in the enquiry because of non-production of the relevant file which got missing during the departmental enquiry. He submits that the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of non-production of the file because of loss of the same and, therefore, the order impugned in the present writ petition has been passed in accordance with law. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Facts are not in dispute in the present case. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 3.10.2002. Thereafter a regular enquiry was initiated against him. Petitioner was reinstated on 27.6.2005. The enquiry officer filed his Civil Writ Petition No. 1592 of 2010 -3- report dated 12.10.2004 exonerating the petitioner of the charges. Pending decision on the enquiry, the petitioner retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation and thereafter vide order dated 8.1.2010, order was passed exonerating the petitioner of the charges but the period of suspension was ordered to be treated as leave of the kind due. The only justification which has been put forth by the respondent-Municipal Corporation for passing such an order is that the petitioner was exonerated in the enquiry because of non- production of the files which went missing during enquiry and were the basis of the charges levelled against the petitioner. Counsel does not dispute the fact that those files which were found missing, were in the custody of the Municipal Corporation. For this act the petitioner cannot be held responsible nor he could be penalized for the same. The order passed by respondent No.3, under these circumstances, cannot be accepted. The judgment Dr. M.L. Kamra and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner also supports the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 8.1.2010 (Annexure P-2) is set aside. The period spent during the suspension period of the petitioner is directed to be treated as period spent on duty. The petitioner is held entitled to the consequential benefits for the said period which shall be released to him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It may also be clarified here that the petitioner has only confined his prayer with regard to the period, which he had during his Civil Writ Petition No. 1592 of 2010 -4- suspension and the other claims and pleas raised by him have not been pressed. However, it would be open to the petitioner at a subsequent stage as and when the situation so requires or mandates to reagitate the same. 2.5.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE