c^\ (P ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S( No. ,^^3 /2009 ?jri^^ ^^is^^i PETITIONER .."<"Q^5 ^^•^- ^•^..^' "sa^ ^'^ .^- ^'yr^.^' y ^" y Sajnpatlal Tiwari S/o Shri M.L. Tiwari, aged about 54 years R/o Village- Sodhi, Thana-Bamnideeh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary School Education Department D.K.S. ^ Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^ 2. District Education Officer ^f ^' District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ^ ^' 3. Shiksha Prasar Samiti i- Its President Bamnideeh, District Janjgir-Cham.pa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA h" ^. ^^ (Hon, Mr. Justjce Pritinker Diwaker) VV.P.(S)No. 2623 of 2009 Petitloner. . Sampatia) Tiwari VERSUS Resooridents State of Chhattisgarh and others Present: Shri Vivek Sharma, counse! for the petitloner. Shri B. Payashi, PL for the State/respondents No.1 &2. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, counsel t'or respondent No.3. ORDER (1^10.2011) Chailenge in the present petitlon is to the order dated 06.04.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3 by which thouah the suspension order of the petitioner has been revoked yet a direction has been issued to pay hlm on!y 75% of the salary ti!i dec-ision'of the pending betbre the Court. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner who was working as Principa!, La! Bahadur Sastry Higher Secondan/ School, Bamnideeh, Distt. Janjgir was placed under suspension on 27.06.2008 (Annexure P-2). The suspension order of the petjtioner however was revoked on 30.09.2008 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter, on 24.11.2008 (Annexure P-5) aietter was issued by respondent No.1 to respondent No.3 asking it to place the petltioner under suspension again. Pursuant tothis direction issued by the State Government, the petitioner was again suspended by respondent No.3 vide order dated 05.12.2008 (Annexure P-6). However, vide impugned order dated 06.04.2009, suspension of the petitioner has been revoked but a direction has been issued to pay him 75% of the salary only. 3. Contention of Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the petltioner is that once the suspension order of the petitioner itself s' has been revoked, no curtaifment in his salary can be made by the respondents and they have abso!utely no authority to pass any such order under the iaw. tt has been further argued that purportediy the order has been issued in the garb of Fundamenta! Rule 54-6 (3) but even the said ruie does not cail for passing of such orders. t'ii ;iiiiid^?- r 4. Qn the other hand, supporting the order impugned, jt has been argued by the State counsel that the order having been issued under Fundamental Ruie 54-B is strictly in accordance with !aw. 5. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, learned counsei appearing for respondent No.3 also supports the impugned order. He submjts that the suspension order of the petitioner was revoked just because the charge sheet could not be issued to him within 90 days from the date of his suspension. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire record as also the impugned order. 7. Fundamental rule 54-B reads as under:- "54"B(1) When a Government servant who has been suspended, is re-instated or would have been so re-instated but for hls retirement on superannuation whiie under suspension, the authority competent to order re-instatement shall consider and make a specific order- (a) regarding the pay and aliowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of suspension ending with re-lnstatement or the date of his retirement on superannuation, as the case may be; and -^- ^ (b) whether or not the said peripd sha!i be treated as a period spent on duty. (2) xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx (3) Where the authority competent to order re-instatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholiy unjustified, the Government servant, shail subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8), be paid the full pay and altowances to which he wou!d have been entitied, had he not been suspended: Provided that where such authority Is of the opinion that the termination of the proceedings instituted against the Government servant had been delayed due to reasons directly attributable to the Government servant, it may, after giving him an opportunity to make ht's representation within 60 days from the date on which the communication in this regard is served on him and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by hlm direct, for reasons to be recorded in writing that the Government servant shail be paid for the period of such deiay, on!y such amount (not being the whoie) of such pay and aliowances as it may determine. (4) (S) (7) xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx (8) The payment of allowances under sub-rule (2), sub-ruie (3) or under sub-rule (5), shall be subject to al! other conditions under which such allowancesare admissible." 8. From a bare reading of the above rule, it is clear that the order impugned cannot be passed based thereon. From the //' •%• '^-m a!^'. ^ ^. "^r "^^y ^ ^ facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that tili the impugned order dated 06.04.2009 was passed even the charge sheet could not be issued to the petitioner rather it was issued only on 21.07.2009 (Annexure R-1). Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the proceedings have been delayed on account of any act of the petitioner. It seems that respondent No.3 has completely mlsunderstood the Fundamental Ruie 54-B white passing the impugned order fbliowing the provisions ofthesame In an undesirable fashion. It would not be out of place to mention here that once after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the suspension of the petitioner has been revoked and he is reinstated, he becomes entitled for his fuit satary. Priya 9. Having thus observed as above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order, so far as it relates to payment of saiary to the extent of 75% is set aside and it is directed that the petitioner is entitled for his full salary from the date on which he has been reinstated as a resuit of revocation of his suspension. -^"