Civil Writ Petition No. 3245 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNAJB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: April 07, 2008 Sat Sarup Dogra ............ Petitioner versus Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh ............. Respondent CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- Present: Shri Amar Vivek, Advocate for the petitioner Shri Karminder Singh, Advocate for the respondent HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing order dated 10.03.2004, Annexure P-2, whereby services of the petitioner were put under suspension. The petitioner was initially placed under suspension in April, 1990 and a charge-sheet dated 08.10.1990 was served upon the petitioner on various acts of omission and commission. An Inquiry Officer was appointed on 6.5.1991. The Inquiry Officer has since given his report on 5.11.2003 holding 25 charges proved against the petitioner as against 42 levelled against him. The suspension of the petitioner, pending enquiry, was Civil Writ Petition No. 3245 of 2007 [2] challenged by the petitioner in CWP No. 7416 of 1993. The said writ petition along with three other civil writ petitions came up for hearing before this Court on 20.05.1997. During the course of said writ petition, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked on 21.11.1994 under an interim order passed by the Division Bench. Consequently, the petitioner prayed that he should be allowed to continue to work against the post which was available to him during the pendency of the enquiry. The said request was accepted and the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 20.05.1997. The operative part of the said order reads as under:- “ Mr. Khehar then argued that petitioner has been reinstated in service in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 21.11.1994 and no useful purpose would be served in placing the petitioner under suspension after such a long time. His prayer is that petitioner should be allowed to continue to work against the post which is available to him during the pendency of the enquiry. We find substance in this submission of counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner was ordered to be placed under suspension in the year 1989 and his suspension was ordered to be revoked on 21.11.1994 under the interim orders of this Court. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner under suspension at this stage. W are not quashing the impugned order placing the petitioner under suspension but keep the interim order dated 21.11.1994 passed by the Motion Bench in force till the conclusion of the departmental enquiry and up to the stage of passing of an order by the punishing authority. Thereafter, the order of the punishing authority shall become operative. This petition stands disposed of subject to the observations indicated above”. On 03.03.2004, report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Code”) was Civil Writ Petition No. 3245 of 2007 [3] presented in FIR No. 104 dated 11.10.1990 under section 406/409/420/467/468/471/477 IPC. The petitioner along with his three co- accused were taken in custody. Since the petitioner was in judicial custody, order dated 10.03.2004, Annexure P-2, was passed whereby the petitioner was put under suspension. It is further pointed out that the petitioner has since been released on bail by this Court on 18.03.2004. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that final action in pursuance of the report of the Inquiry Officer is pending consideration before the Sub Committee constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice and, therefore, the services of the petitioner cannot be ordered to be reinstated. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been put under suspension only on account of his detention in a criminal case and, therefore, once he has been released on bail, he is entitled to be reinstated. He argued that in pursuance of the order passed by the Division Bench on 21.11.1994, the petitioner was reinstated and, therefore, there is no justification for not reinstating the petitioner now. He relied upon decision of this Court reported as Hem Chander vs. State of Haryana and others, 1995(1) Recent Services Judgements 266. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the action on the enquiry report is not subject matter of controversy in the present writ petition. The petitioner claims reinstatement on account of his bail consequent to his detention on presentation of report under section 173 of the Code on 03.03.2004. In Hem Chander's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has held that where the suspension is on account of detention, under Rule 7.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I, the suspension has to be during the period of Civil Writ Petition No. 3245 of 2007 [4] detention. For the said view, the Division Bench relied upon earlier Division Bench decision in CWP No. 619 of 1994 titled Ram Pal vs. State of Haryana, decided on 25.08.1994. From the perusal of the facts noticed above, it is apparent that the petitioner was reinstated pending enquiry in pursuance of the interim order passed by a Division Bench of this Court. He was put under suspension again on account of his detention in a criminal case which has since come to an end after he was granted bail on 18.03.2004. In view of the aforesaid judgment, period of suspension, in case of detention in pursuance of a criminal case, had to be up to the period of detention alone. In view of the said fact, we find that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated and suspension beyond the period of his detention is not justified. Consequently, we allow the present writ petition and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE April 07, 2008 (MOHINDER PAL) ks JUDGE