C.W.P No. 1891 of 2004 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 1891 of 2004 Date of decision : November 03, 2008 Som Nath ...... Petitioner through Mr.APS Rana, Advocate v. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Science and Research, Chandigarh & Anr ...... Respondents through Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J The petitioner was found guilty in a departmental inquiry of having obtained a sum of Rs.108/- in cash from a patient on the pretext of arranging for a senior doctor to examine him. He was awarded punishment of removal from service which would not, however, operate as disqualification for further employment. Ultimately, on a representation made by the petitioner, the Minister of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi passed the following order :- “On reviewing the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, it is observed that the penalty imposed on Sh. Somnath was excessive and he should be reinstated in service with immediate effect provided he has not already attained the C.W.P No. 1891 of 2004 ::2:: age of superannuation i.e 60 years. The period between his removal from service and reinstatement will be treated as dies-non.” Consequently, by subsequent order dated 16.3.1992, the petitioner was reinstated in service. Thereafter, the petitioner represented that his past service should not be washed away. He ultimately filed CWP No.13413 of 2002 which was disposed of with the following order :- “ Counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to pursue his departmental remedy and request the department to deal with the matter expeditiously. Dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty as prayed for granted.” The petitioner thereafter represented and the impugned order dated 2.12.2002 was passed declining his prayer for counting the period he remained out of job as a period spent on duty. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that under sub rules (2) and (3) of Fundamental Rule 54, the petitioner was entitled to have his period of absence from duty as a period spent on duty for all purposes. Relevant portion of Fundamental Rule 54 reads as follows :- “ 54. xx xx xx (2) Where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of opinion that the Government servant who had been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired has been fully exonerated, the Government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (6) be C.W.P No. 1891 of 2004 ::3:: paid the full pay allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsory retirement, as the case may be. (3) In a case falling under sub-rule (2), the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes.” In my opinion, the key concept in sub-rule (2) of Fundamental Rule 54 is the opinion of the competent authority that the government servant has been fully exonerated. In the present case, as narrated above, the impugned order did not exonerate the petitioner but only found that the penalty of termination of service was excessive. It is note worthy that the petitioner never challenged this order of conditional reinstatement. Only after having taken the benefit of that order and thereafter having superannuated, the petitioner for the first time approached this Court in 2002, as noticed above. Even that petition was not pressed and was dismissed as withdrawn. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show how the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of counting his past service, in view of the order dated 9.3.1992. On a conspectus of all the facts noticed above, I hold that there is no merit in the petition and consequently dismiss the same with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 03 , 2008. JUDGE `kk' C.W.P No. 1891 of 2004 ::4::