1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1475/2001 (Om Singh Rathore Vs. Udaipur Central Cooperative Bank Limited & Anrs.) Date of order : 25.04.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Rajesh Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr. Sajjan Singh, for the respondents. In this writ petition, the petitioner is claiming directions to the respondents to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner for the period commencing from June 1989 to January 1996 – the period in which the petitioner was under suspension, without all consequential benefits with interest @ 18% per annum. According to the facts of the case, the petitioner who is employee of respondent Bank was placed under suspension vide order dated 30.5.1989 and 2 he was reinstated in service vide order dated 17.1.1996 (Annexure-1). In the departmental enquiry so conducted against the petitioner, he was exonerated by order of the Executive Officer dated 21.7.2000 (Annexure-2). Meaning thereby, after exoneration from the charges levelled against him, the petitioner was entitled for full salary for the period in which he remained under suspension. The petitioner filed representation before the respondents for making of payment of arrears of salary as he was only paid subsistence allowance during the period but full salary was not paid, therefore, a request was made to pay the entire salary for the said period. The respondents vide communication dated 27.11.2000 (Annexure-4) informed the petitioner that he has already been paid subsistence allowance of Rs.17,253/- but he has not filed the pay bill for his claim, therefore, in absence of submitting any pay bill by him for the suspension period, it is not possible to make payment. In pursuance of the said communication, the petitioner submitted his claim vide Annexure-5 but no payment has been made to the petitioner knowingly well that in the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated from the charges levelled against him. 3 In reply, it is stated by the respondents that the petitioner was posted during his suspension period at the enquiry place but the petitioner was not present despite repeated notices and he remained absent, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get full salary because he remained willfully absent during the suspension period. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the case. I am of the opinion that baseless reply has been filed by the respondents without assigning any cogent reasons for denial of payment to the petitioner of full salary for which he was placed under suspension. Admittedly, the petitioner was exonerated from the charges levelled against him by the Executive Officer, Udaipur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. vide its order dated 21.7.2000, therefore, after exoneration when no order has been made by the disciplinary authority for any penalty including retention of salary of the petitioner, then, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled for full salary for the period for which the petitioner was under suspension. In these circumstances, the respondents are directed to pay full salary to the petitioner for the period during which the petitioner remained under suspension. The respondents are directed to pay full salary to the petitioner for the period commencing 4 from June, 1989 to January, 1996 after deducting the subsistence allowance which has already been paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that if payment as ordered by this Court is not paid to the petitioner within the stipulated period, then the petitioner will be entitled for interest @ 6% per annum. The writ petition is allowed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun