CWP No.7762 of 1989 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.7762 of 1989 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.09.2011 Sh. Roor Singh (deceased), Ex-Constable Railway Protection Force through his LRs. ... Petitioners Versus The Deputy Inspector General, Railway Protection Force, Baroda House, New Delhi and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Paramjit Singh Goraya, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) CM No.12102 of 2011 1. CM is allowed. Replication is taken on record. CWP No.7762 of 1989 2. The petitioner, who challenged the order of removal from service is not alive to prosecute the case but the legal representatives have been substituted to secure the monetary benefits, which would have resulted if, the petitioner had been alive. 3. The order of removal from service followed an inquiry that laid a charge that the deceased petitioner absconded and did not report for duty CWP No.7762 of 1989 (O&M) [2] during the period of his suspension. The suspension order had been issued pending some criminal case under investigation on 10.07.1985. A subsequent notice was issued on 29.11.1985 stating that he was bound to be present in office and he could not have absented himself during his suspension when he did not report for duty. An inquiry was constituted by appointing an Inquiry Officer Ajaib Singh. He gave a report stating that the petitioner had not given sufficient explanation for remaining absent from 02.11.1985 to 05.11.1985 and from 11.11.1985 to 09.12.1985 that is, during the period of suspension. The charges were said to have been proved and the Appointing Authority removed him from service. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that during the period of suspension, there cannot be compulsion for the suspended employee to do any work and if such instructions are issued, they will be treated as wholly unjustified and in conformity with law. The counsel refers me to a Division Bench decision of this Court in “Ramesh Chander Chug v. The Haryana State Electricity Board, 1986(3) SLR 1” that dealt with the case of suspension and the competence of a particular Officer to issue such an order. The case also dealt with the effect of departmental action arising out the breach of direction for reporting duty during the period of suspension. Referring to judgment of the Supreme Court and a decision of this Court, the Court held that it shall not be possible to compel a suspended employee to report for duty. The Bench reproduced also the judgment of Calcutta High Court expressing its approval to a similar proposition of law laid down in “Chitranjan Ghose v. I.G. of Police W.B. And others, 1979(2) SLR 194 and yet another ruling of Andhra Pradesh High Court in “Zonal CWP No.7762 of 1989 (O&M) [3] Manager, Food Corporation of India and others v. Khaleel Ahmed Siddiqui, 1982(2) SLR 779”. In terms of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, I hold that there could not have been a valid charge for remaining absent during the period of suspension. The termination effected on such charges is equally vitiated. The impugned order of removal from service is quashed. 5. Surviving petitioners shall be entitled to treat the deceased petitioner as having been in service but in a state of suspension. The petitioners shall be paid the suspension allowance upto the maximum period that is permissible under Rules and for the succeeding period, the deceased petitioner shall be treated to be in service till the date of his death or his year of superannuation, whichever is earlier and all the emoluments payable to the deceased petitioner if, he had been in service shall be calculated and given to the petitioners. This benefit would include the terminal benefits that had accrued to the estate of the deceased petitioner. 6. The respondents shall calculate the amount and pay the due amount to the petitioners within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order with interest @ 6% from the date when the emoluments fell due till the date of payment. 7. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. ( K. KANNAN ) SEPTEMBER 06, 2011 JUDGE Rajan