CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14494 OF 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: May 19, 2008 Parties Name Padam Singh ..PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. C. PURI PRESENT: None for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana; JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) Order. By filing this writ petition, petitioner prays that order dated February 6, 2007 (P-6), vide which except subsistence allowance, nothing has been ordered to be paid to the petitioner, for the suspension period, be quashed. It is apparent from the records that the petitioner was put under suspension on February 14, 2001. He was served with a charge sheet. It was allegation against him that while acting as a Returning Officer, in an election, he has wrongly ordered recount of the votes. Reply filed by him was found unsatisfactory. Regular enquiry was instituted against him. The Enquiry Officer, on completion of the enquiry, came to a conclusion that charges of malafide were not proved against the petitioner. He only CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14494 OF 2007 -2- indicated some procedural defects in the process adopted by the petitioner. The Punishing Authority issued show cause notice to the petitioner for imposition of punishment under rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. On receipt of reply, charges were dropped. However, he was asked to remain careful in future. Relevant portion of the order dated February 11, 2001, reads thus: “On considering the reply submitted by Sh. Padam Singh and to know the reality of the facts Sh. K.M.Nath, Principal, Govt. Polytechnic for Women Faridabad was appointed Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report as per charge No. 1 concluded that though Sh. Padam Singh should not have recommended for recounting, the part of the charge of malafide intention and ulterior motive is not proved against Sh. Padam Singh. In fact the charge pertaining overstepping of authority as Returning Officer against Sh. Padam Singh is also diluted to a great extent in view of the Enquiry Report of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul. Charge No. 2,3 and 4 has not been proved against him. After considering the Enquiry Report, a show cause notice was issued to Sh Padam Singh. On considering the report to Show Cause Notice Sh Padam Singh was heard on 17-08-2006. In view of the findings of the Enquiry Report and submissions made by the Officer, order to drop the charges levelled against Sh. Padam Singh and he is advised to be careful in future.” Thereafter on January 31, 2007, impugned order was passed, relevant portion of which reads as under: CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14494 OF 2007 -3- “After careful consideration Govt has decided to treat the suspension period of Sh. Padam Singh Lecturer, Electronics Engineer Govt. Polytechnic for Women, Faridabad from 14-02- 2001 to 10-6-2003 as duty period only for the purpose of pensionary benefits & increments. Regarding pay and allowances he will be given subsistence allowances which is just sufficient & nothing more be paid to him.” It is apparent from the reading of the extract, reproduced above, that to deny benefit of salary, allowances etc., for the suspension period, no reason what-so-ever have been given by the competent authority. It has come on record that no malafide was proved against the petitioner, he has not committed any irregularity, there was only defect in the procedure adopted by him at the time of election. By taking note of the same, charges were dropped, then, it was desirable for the authorities to grant him benefit of salary and other allowances for the period he remained under suspension , i.e., from February 14, 2001, to June 10, 2003. We are of the view that the petitioner was put under suspension in a very post-haste manner. The allegations were not so serious that it was necessary to put an employee under suspension. The petitioner was made to suffer unnecessarily. In view of facts, mentioned above, we allow this writ petition and set aside order (Annexure P-5) to the extent it denies benefit of salary and other allowances to the petitioner for the period of suspension. It is also necessary to mention here that vide order under challenge, suspension period was ordered to be treated as duty period for the purpose of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14494 OF 2007 -4- pensionary benefits and increments. Respondent – authorities are directed to give above mentioned benefits to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( K. C. Puri ) May 19, 2008. Judge DKC