Regular Second Appeal No.1503 of 1987 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: May 13, 2010 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director. ...Appellant VERSUS Ravinder Nath & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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: Mr.G.S.Gill, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Pradeep Pawar, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation has filed this Regular Second Appeal. Ravinder Nath, working as a Helper with the appellant, had filed this suit to challenge the order dated 15.2.1983 whereby the direction issued by General Manager depriving the Regular Second Appeal No.1503 of 1987 : 2 : respondent-plaintiff of his pay and allowances for the period he had remained under suspension was set-aside and he was held entitled to entire pay and allowances for this period. The facts leading to award of punishment of censure and this order depriving the respondent-plaintiff to pay and allowances are that respondent-plaintiff was found absent from duty on 5.12.1980 by a team when it visited the workshop. For this allegation, the respondent-plaintiff was placed under suspension on 16.12.1980. Thereafter, he was issued a memo of charges on 9.1.1981. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to him on 30.9.1982 and after obtaining his reply, the respondent-plaintiff was awarded punishment of censure, besides the direction to deprive him of the pay and allowances for the period during which he had remained under suspension. The respondent-plaintiff had been reinstated on 15.2.1983. The respondent-plaintiff had, thus, remained under suspension for over two years for one day's absence. The respondent-plaintiff accordingly filed a suit which was dismissed against which he filed an appeal, which was allowed. The first Appellate Court found weight in the submission made on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff that two penalties could not be imposed for the same fault. The submission was that the penalty of censure and reduction to a lower post or time scale or to a lower scale in the time scale, suspension, removal etc. could be imposed by the Depot Manager upon a Helper as per the conditions of appointment and service regulations. The show cause notice for punishment was accordingly issued. The Court on the basis of submission made before it came to conclude that punishment of Regular Second Appeal No.1503 of 1987 : 3 : censure was validly awarded, but the respondent-plaintiff could not have been deprived of his pay and allowances for the period during which he had remained under suspension. Though the first Appellate Court appears to have interfered in the impugned order on the ground that two punishments could not be awarded to him, yet the case may have to be looked from another angle. It may have to be seen whether the award of punishment of censure for a day's absence should be visited with the consequences of depriving the respondent-plaintiff of his pay and allowances for a period of over two years for which he had remained under suspension. This order of depriving the respondent-plaintiff of his pay and allowances would sound rather harsh than the punishment of censure, which is awarded to him for being absent for a day. I can seek support from Krishan Sewak Vs. The State of Haryana and another, 1997(4) RSJ 162 and Y.P.Sehgal Vs. State of Punjab and another, 1992(1) SLR 583. In the case of Krishan Sewak (supra), the allegations were disposed of by awarding penalty of warning. The period of suspension was regularised by grant of leave of the kind due. In this background, it was observed that the penalty of warning imposed after departmental enquiry was appropriate and to deny benefit of suspension period to the petitioner therein was held not justified. The respondent-State was accordingly directed to treat the period of suspension as duty period and to allow the benefits to him for the same. The principle, which had weighed with the court, obviously was that the order, which was passed to regularise the Regular Second Appeal No.1503 of 1987 : 4 : period of suspension if allowed to operate more harshly than the punishment awarded for the offence, then it may be seen as unfair. Similar view is expressed by this court in Y.P.Sehgal's case (supra). In this case, the allegation was disposed of by awarding censure. It was held that it was neither permissible in law nor fair to deny arrears of salary and allowances for the period of suspension. In my view, substantial question of law that to deprive the respondent-plaintiff of his pay and allowances for the period during which he remained under suspension is surely harsh when the case was disposed of by award of punishment of censure, would arise in this case. The order depriving the respondent-plaintiff of pay and allowances is rather harsh than the punishment of censure and, thus, unfair. Accordingly no case for interference in the Regular Second Appeal is made out. The same is accordingly dismissed. May 13, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE