ADHYAKSHA ZILLA PARISHAD ALLAHABAD Vs. BABU RAM TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a special leave petition from the orders of the Allahabad high court dated 10/01/1989 and 18/12/1989. There is a delay in the filing of the special leave petition so far as the earlier order is concerned, but this delay was on account of the pursuit of relief by the petitioner by way of an application to the High court for recalling its earlier order. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that this delay should be condoned. We, therefore, condone the delay. We also grant leave in the special leave petition and proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing both counsel.

(2.) The respondent, who was employed as a Junior Engineer by the appellant Zilla Parishad, was suspended by an order dated 9/06/1981 in consequence of a first information report lodged against him and the pendency of investigation and contemplated disciplinary action. However, it appears that no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent for quite some time. The respondent therefore, filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High court. By an order dated 3/05/1988, the High court directed the Zilla Parishad to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a specified period. It directed further : "we make it clear that if Final orders in the disciplinary proceedings are not passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of reply from the petitioner, the order of suspension shall stand automatically revoked and thereafter it will be open to the Zilla Parishad to take its own time for passing final orders. " The Zilla Parishad did not pass final orders for certain reasons which are not relevant at the present moment, except to say that the disciplinary proceedings over the respondent had been taken over by the State government sometime in May 1988. Thereupon the respondent filed a writ petition praying that since the disciplinary proceedings had not been concluded, he was entitled to the payment of full salary to him for the entire period since 9/06/1981. This writ petition was allowed by the High court. The State government as well as the Zilla Parishad applied to the High court for recalling the order but this application was rejected on 10/01/1989 and a review application was also rejected on 18/12/1989. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) We are of the opinion that the High court was in error in directing the payment to the respondent of his full salary right from 9/06/1981 onwards. The order of suspension of the respondent dated 9/06/1981 was not in any way vitiated. The High court was only concerned with the question whether the suspension order could enure indefinitely without any disciplinary proceedings being taken against the respondent. The High court, rightly in our opinion, held that the Zilla Parishad was not entitled to keep the respondent under suspension indefinitely. So, it limited the period within which the disciplinary proceedings should be completed and directed that if the proceedings were not finalised by 11/06/1988, the suspension order would stand revoked. We do not understand this order to mean, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent and held by the High court, that since the enquiry was not completed by 11/06/1988, the suspension order would stand revoked from the date of issue. In our opinion, the proper construction to be placed on the order is only to say that the suspension order against the respondent could not continue beyond 12/06/1988. The High court was, therefore, not justified in directing the payment of full salary to the respondent between 9/06/1981 and June 11/06/1988.