IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.5069 of 2008 Date of Decision:21.04.2008 Union of India and others .....Petitioner versus Central Administrative Tribunal and another .....Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr.Rajesh Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. The present writ petition has been filed by Union of India and others with a prayer that the impugned order (Annexure P-3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') on 23.08.2007 in OA No.71-CH-2007 be quashed. Respondent No.2 remained under suspension from 24.06.1998 to 09.02.2000 as the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rule, 1970. The charges levelled against respondent No.2 were proved true in a regular departmental inquiry and penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effected was imposed. Respondent No.2 had preferred Original Application No.878- CH-2001 wherein the learned Tribunal ordered the competent authority to pass a separate order as to how the suspension period of respondent No.2 was to be treated. The Director Public Instructions ordered that the period of suspension be regularised by sanctioning the extra-ordinary C.W.P.No.5069 of 2008 --2-- leave. Subsequently, order (Annexure A-1) was passed that during the suspension period, subsistence allowance paid to respondent No.2 amounting to Rs.94,441/- be recovered as the period of suspension was considered as extra-ordinary leave. This order of the Director Public Instructions was challenged in Original Application No.71-CH-2007. The learned Tribunal passed the impugned order (Annexure P-3) and noticed rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I and held as under:- “A plain reading of the above provisions of Rule 7.3 shows that sub rule 8 deals with a situation where a Govt. employee, during the period of suspension, engaged himself into some other employment and received payment for the same. In such situations, the emoluments, which are admissible under this rule should be adjusted for the amount earned during employment elsewhere. Note 4 to this sub rule is really meant to deal with a situation whereby it is more advantageous for the employee to have the suspension period converted into extra-ordinary leave because conversion of the period of suspension into leave, with or without allowances, has the effect of removing the stigma of suspension and all the adverse consequences flowing there from. The provisions of this note cannot override the provisions of sub rule 7 which specifically provides that the amount determined under sub rule 4 shall not be less than the subsistence allowance admissible under Rule 7.2. The subsistence allowance, as the word implies, is given to an employee to sustain himself during the period he has remained under suspension. By using the provisions of Note 4 of sub rule 8 and by converting the period of suspension of the applicant into extra-ordinary leave, one cannot deprive of the subsistence allowance which he has already been paid. According to the provisions of Rule 7.3, sub rule 4, even in those cases where a Govt. employee has not been exonerated, the amount which C.W.P.No.5069 of 2008 --3-- the employee would be entitled to get for the period he remained out of service or under suspension, shall be subject to the provisions of sub rule 7 which means that such amount shall not be less than the subsistence allowance admissible under Rule 7.2. If the provisions of Note 4 under Rule 7.3(8) are to be used in the manner in which respondents have used it against the applicant, it would really amount to double jeopardy as on the one hand punishment of stoppage of two increments has already been imposed on him and on the other hand he is being asked to refund the subsistence allowance for the period he remained under suspension. I agree with the contention of the applicant that in a similar situation, Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in RSA No.205 of 1981, decided on 18th August, 2002, titled Ramesh Kumar versus Punjab State reported in 2003(1) RSJ 445 had held that such action on the part of the authorities amounts to double jeopardy”. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal. The employee had remained under suspension and was paid the subsistence allowance and finally his two increments were stopped with cumulative effect. By recovering the amount of subsistence allowance, punishment more than stoppage of two increments is sought to be imposed. Learned Tribunal has rightly held the same to be double jeopardy. No interference is called for by this Court. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE April 21, 2008 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) seema JUDGE