CW 5556/06 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.5556/2006 Narendra Kr. Gupta Versus Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd & Ors. Date of Order ::: 13/01/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Sudarshan Laddha, for petitioner. Mr. Vinod Goyal for Mr.Virendra Lodha, for respondents Instant petition has been filed with the grievance that once inquiry initiated against petitioner was dropped by respondents authority vide order dt.05/02/04 (Ann.1), denial of payment of full salary & allowances, other than subsistence allowance paid during period of suspension vide order dt.04/04/06 (Ann.4) is not legally sustainable. Petitioner was placed under suspension on 04/04/90 under contemplation of disciplinary inquiry for alleged delinquency committed while working as Assistant engineer (REC) Hindoli during the years 1988 to 1990, for which charge sheet was issued vide memo dt.05/03/92 (Ann.R/2) under Reg.7 of RSEB Employees (Classification, Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1962 (“CCA Regulations, 1962”), and later on converted into Reg.6 (minor penalty) vide order dt.21/12/94. Pendente inquiry, petitioner was reinstated in service on 31/01/93. However, after taking note CW 5556/06 //2// of explanation dt.20/04/92 to aforesaid charge sheet, and material on record, disciplinary authority dropped inquiry vide order dt.05/02/04 (Ann.1) - as a consequence whereof, period of suspension from 04/04/90 to 31/03/93 vide order dt.04/06 (Ann.4) was treated as period spent on duty but without pay & allowance except subsistence already paid to him. Hence this petition. Counsel for petitioner submits that apart from withholding his full salary & allowance except subsistence allowances already paid during suspension, to which he was legally entitled for, he was deprived of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (E&M) against vacancies of 2003-04 merely on account of pendency of inquiry (supra) as is evident from order dt.22/09/04 (Ann.2), which has caused great prejudice to him. In their reply, respondents have inter- alia averred that though recommendations were made by the selection committee convened on 18/09/03, for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer against vacancies of year 2003-04 but on account of pendency of inquiry against him promotion was denied and later on upon finalization of his inquiry, notional promotion CW 5556/06 //3// was allowed to him w.e.f. 18/09/2003 the date from which, his juniors were promoted as Executive Engineer. Having considered contentions of Counsel for the parties, and with their assistance examined the material on record; as regards promotion against the vacancies of year 2003-04, suffice it to say that once disciplinary inquiry, itself was dropped by the authority vide order dt.05/02/04 (Ann.1) petitioner became entitled to promotion from the date his juniors were promoted as Executive Engineer. As regards denial of payment of full salary & allowances for the period of suspension from 04/04/90 to 31/01/93 vide order dt.04.04/06 (Ann.4) except subsistence allowances already paid to him, this Court finds substance in the submission made by Counsel for petitioner for the reason that on re-instatement after revoking suspension, the service has to be regularised under Reg.41(2)of RSEB Employees Regulations, 1964 (“Regulations, 1964”) which has been adopted by respondents RVVNL also. Reg.41(2) clearly stipulates that if competent authority has finally exonerated or holds the suspension to be wholly unjustified, employee shall be given the full pay & allowance to which he would have been entitled CW 5556/06 //4// had he not been dismissed, removed or suspended, as the case may be. Reg.41(2) of Regulations, 1964 provides ad infra: “41. Re-instatement after suspension, removal or dismissal: When an employee who has been dismissed, removed or suspended is reinstated, the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall consider and make a specified order. 1. (a) Regarding the pay and allowance to be paid to the employee for the period of his absence from duty, and (b) Whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. (c) Whether or not the suspension, removal or dismissal was wholly unjustifiable. 2. Where such competent authority holds that the employee has been fully exonerated or in the case of suspension that it was wholly unjustified, the employee shall be given the full pay and dearness allowance to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or suspended as the case may be. In instant case, indisputably, inquiry initiated against petitioner under Reg.7 of CCA Regulations vide charge sheet dt.05/03/92 to which he furnished his explanation long back on 20/04/92, which was later on converted into Reg.6 (minor penalty) vide order dt.21/12/94, was finally dropped by disciplinary authority vide order dt.05/02/04 (Ann.1), that certainly makes him entitled for full salary & allowances thereon other than subsistence allowance already paid during suspension in terms of Reg.41(2) of CW 5556/06 //5// Regulations, 1962 (supra); and no discretion is left with the competent authority from with- holding such period's full salary & allowances, as a consequence thereof, order dt.04/04/06 (Ann.4) denying full salary & dearness allowances for suspension period in question is not legally sustainable and deserves to be set aside. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Order dt.04/04/06 (Ann.4) as regards denial of payment of full salary & allowances for suspension period (04/04/90 to 31/01/93) is quashed & set aside and the respondents are directed to make payment of full salary & allowances after adjusting subsistence allowances already paid to him during aforesaid period of suspension alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of its accrual till actual payment. Respondents shall ensure compliance be made within three months. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.5/5556CW06-13Jn.doc