Civil Writ Petition No. 14166 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 14166 of 2007 Date of Decision: 22.4.2008 Jagtar Singh …Petitioner Versus Shahid Darshan Singh Pheruman Memorial Trust, College for Women, Rayya, District Amritsar and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Karambir Singh Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S.Bal, Advocate for respondents. Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (Oral) The petitioner has prayed for quashing of order of suspension dated 2.8.2001 (Annexure P1), order of termination dated 5.8.2002 (Annexure P18), order of approval of termination dated 10.12.2003 (Annexure P22) and order of Tribunal dated 16.5.2007 (Annexure P24). When the case came up for motion hearing on 11.9.2007, the Co-ordinate Bench has dismissed the prayer of petitioner with regard to Civil Writ Petition No. 14166 of 2007 2 quashing of the order of termination and the following order was passed:- “Case of the petitioner is that he was employed as a Clerk with respondent No.1-College. He was placed under suspension on the allegation of breach of trust and causing loss to the Management for personal gain, forgery and cheating. After inquiry, wherein charges were held to have been proved, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 5.8.2002. The petitioner represented before the Director, Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab but after considering the same, order of dismissal was approved. Petitioner's appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Tribunal under the provisions of Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1974 vide order dated 16.5.2007. In the light of these developments, the issue as to how suspension period should be treated was considered by separate order and vide order dated 14.6.2006, Annexure P-25. It was directed that since the petitioner never attended the college during the suspension period, he was not entitled to any subsistence allowance and the period of suspension was to be treated as non duty period. Civil Writ Petition No. 14166 of 2007 3 Even though learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order of dismissal which has been upheld and appeal against which has been dismissed, we do not find any merit in challenge against the said order. The charges having been duly proved after inquiry and the matter having been considered by the statutory authorities, no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is called for. Last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is for payment of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension”. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only relief that remain in the present case is whether the petitioner is entitled to be paid the suspension allowance for the period he remained under suspension. Learned counsel for respondent submits that as they have to recover a huge amount along with interest amounting to Rs.3,67,398/- from the petitioner on account of embezzlement committed by the petitioner and the petitioner also stands convicted by the Court of leaned Judicial Magistrate, Baba Bakala, District Amritsar. Therefore, the amount of suspension allowance be allowed to be set off against the amount of recovery. In view of the fact that respondents have to recover a huge amount as mentioned above and the fact that the petitioner stands convicted for having embezzled huge amounts, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that amount of suspension allowance which is to be Civil Writ Petition No. 14166 of 2007 4 paid to the petitioner be set off against the amount, which is to be recovered by the respondents from the petitioner. No merits. Dismissed. (Ashutosh Mohunta) Judge (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge April 22, 2008 “DK”