IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.66 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:20.1.2010 State of Haryana -----Appellant Vs. Dr. M.L.Kamra and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Ms. Ritu Bahri, Sr.DAG,Haryana for the appellant. --- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment of learned Single Judge quashing withholding of salary for the period of suspension. 2. The writ petitioners were serving as Doctors in General Hospital. Enquiry was held on the allegation of negligence in treating a patient. Finally, they were given a warning on 19.4.2004. They sought regularization of period of suspension by treating the said period as leave of the kind due and order to that effect was passed. Later vide LPA No.66 of 2010 (O&M) order dated 23.2.2007, benefit of pay of the period of suspension was declined under Rule 7(3) of Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume I Part II, which provide for regularisation of manner of payment of pay and allowances for the suspension period. The writ petitioners challenged the order by submitting that in the facts and circumstances of the case, when a mere warning was given, withholding pay and allowances for suspension period will not be fair as held in Krishan Sewak Vs. The State of Haryana and another, 1997(4) RSJ 162 and Rattan Singh Chaudhary v. The State of Punjab and another, 1971 SLR 692. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Only contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that since warning was given to the writ petitioners, there was justification for not paying pay and allowances for the suspension period. 5. We are unable to accept this submission. Assuming the power to withhold pay and allowances for the suspension period is available, such power has to be exercised fairly, as held in judgments relied upon by the 2 LPA No.66 of 2010 (O&M) learned Single Judge. The said judgments have not been shown to be distinguishable. 6. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge January 20, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 3 LPA No.66 of 2010 (O&M) 4