12^-"" ^^•I's--': ..^••••^(^®---" ?.?-T"". 'kv'wn\^.-- '^" t^>!-~ d^ ? grTy- BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. -2 2- ^/ /2009 / Y.K. Patel, aged about 49 years,son of Chhattar Lal Patel, Chief Executive Officer, Presently posted at Janpad Panchayat - Durg Kondal, Distt. Kanker (CG) ..) VERSUS RESPONDENTS /l. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe Development, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) / 2. Collector, Distt. Kanker (CG) ,3. Asst Commissioner, Department QfTribal Development, Distt. Jashpur (CG). WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, /ys^ ~^, il6 'vy. js II1'11 .;f i^i%...??*.r... ^ finKer DI» iy:K.:Pstei,:S,/oChhattar.La!:Patei Sta'f'eof:Chhaftisqarh&ot:hers. AN. Bhaktd,counsel forthe petitioner V.V.S.Moorthy.&y.A.&fopthe WRIT RETTraQN .L^DER,AOTI.Q£_226/227^FTHE iSrievcmce; 6f the petitioner is that vid^ ordep dated 29.4.2QO& yAnnexure P-1) he was suspended and in the suspensionpFdspitwasspeeifi^ly;men1"ionedtha* he.wouiti.be entitied for the subsistehce.dl!owance:in accorcionce with iaw. )-lowsver.even,after,:his r'e-instatement, his .claim for thei .suspensiQn pepioa has.not been.decided tili date. :It is'statsd: in the; writ petition that;t crfter" being acqyitted by the competent •Court'Qn 30^6.20C)8'(Annexure P-3),the petitionep wasre-instatedvtdeorclerd^ed 28^.2009 (Annexype/P-2); but his claim has been.ciefer'rey bysd^ing tlictt.thescime.wputd bedecidedafter'thsdeeisiohof^thestatedppeai'fHedctgcijns!" tiis;:acqyi't'tal. ,; .:: .. :, ;•::: ';., /^: 2.'', ^CouriSel:fort+ie.petitioner:3ubmJt^that<> ®hs:hc^it»sN^ acqyitted by tKe; C'ompeterit •Cotu'l', the ^State no authority. whatsQeyer to-.withtioiy'^ tentitied^fDr a!l];hi^d!kiwance^.Q'f';tKe sijsRensioni been aFgued ithCTt'.1n;,vi:e!»,Df^tt!^iRroyisions'o'f;. .the..Fundamenlxit^Ru1es^:tKe^rgsponden1's,,tthetflbj ;approppi<^e6rder.::':::^;,:.,,f:'.;;i::.':':?;^...'^^ :he .iis per'i0(£,l^ ;1'iQCT^5S-j bjiQedf,|1'(!;^ Ws l!t IL 2 ~~s%. '-?;. lf^"- . '% ^;: % ',<<£&»B i': vsfia% 1 J 9 <sa..s<y.<?" 3. Cdunsel.for ths. Sti acquittal .apjsedl 'filed ddmitted by this. Court reqyired to be corisidepe ioT.Th ate v®rY..fairlysubmits that.though the Stats .©dvsrhment'has. been hut the case of the' petitioner is ;d in'yiew ^of the provisions of Ruie tes;, '.:::.' . :•: , , , 1; for the .parties '• rmd perused .fhe thisCouri'. .• 4., Heard eourtsei documents pigced b< :5. , Rule §4-Bof the Furidamentdl 'Ruies reads as urider ;— "^t Wh^.'a' Gwer'rmer^ :.serya^^^ suspended, 1s re-iristated or would hoYs^^^^b^ but for his re4'iremsnt, on supercOTnuat'ion (ffhjls. uncter susperisi6n,:the cu.ithority comfietent •t'o order re-insfatement shall-cphsfcle^(OT(:i:m<3te.)ctspecifre'oF'cler- : .' (a) ^egdr^irig.t^l.payand'^ ©overnmeht:servant for" fhe periQd of stjspension .endjng, with re-ins'tatement, or- tHe date ofl| |his ..retirement o" superannuation,,QS the casema^|be; ond '':/::. ;.::,' :. •'.•/• ':;:, . •.': ';' f.:l': (b) , whether or riot ,the said, pepipd Ishdtl be tpeatecl; as a.pepi6d.spent^on4uty.::.:,,,;,,,,.i:,',:., ,\ ^ m onythina eonl'ained- iri rulei:rS3. where'g Sovernment sepvant under^suspension^ diss'befor'^1 'S'he discipllnoF^ or cqupt proGeedlrigs/iiristitutecl :cgainstuKifn^^^.^ cohc!uded^:,.theperiod between'theiycrte:gf^susperision;'qRd jt ;date ofdecrl-h slrol!;be treated^ds'duty f<^ily shall be paid thefultj^.and dlowcirices for ^h^ to which he woutd 'hffite^been'^eHtitted! had^ h&^riot' suspended; subjec'f'4'o''cl^jys"Nneni| allowanceatrecdypsid.', ;•;.'..' :.'l inlrespsct:''<i'^,|stj£s(s'tilice ?SA « '^'^'^. ^ J''s ..^' ,^ff €/' (3) Where the authority competent to order re- instatement is of the Qpinion that the suspension was wholiy unjustified, the Govemment seryant; shall subject to the provislonsof sub-rule (8), be paid the full pay and altowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended: , ;, . : 6. In the present cgse, the petitioner was prosscufed for Gonimitting the offences undep Sectidris 7 & 13 (1) (d) read with Sectfon 13 (2) of the PreveiTl'ion of Atrocitjes Act, 1988 but vide judgment and order dated 30.6.2008 (Annexure P-3) 1 l ! r : he has been acquitted. /SAerely an appeal ha^ been preferred by the Stote Soyernment c^ajnst acquitta! order of the petitioner does not diseFitll-ie^himforconsiderat-ionGfhis case in view of the provisiohs of Rule 54-B crf the Fundomenta! Rules. / 7. In view of the foregoing discyssion, State Authcsrities are direGted to- consider •1-he' ecsse of' the petitidner in accorddnce' with. the ^prQyigioris of Ruie 56-B:'.of;| |the Fundamentg! 'Rules cnd .pi^s appropriate grder ^ith^ months from.the dcri-e 6f receiptofcopy.ofthisor'deR^anctlN'he of'f'he petitioner. ' •' •i • Sd/- • - Pritihker Diwakar Judge