NITINBHAI KHELSHANKER PANDYA Vs. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Samir B. Gohil on behalf of the petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Dharitri Pancholi for respondent state, learned Advocate Ms. Trusha K. Patel for the respondent no. 1 and 2. By way of this petition the petitioner who was at the relevant point of time working as Junior Clerk with the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court at Bhanvad seeks for regularization of suspension period from 03.06.1987 to 03.04.2016 for all purposes and to grant all consequential benefits including revision of pay, increment, pension etc. with appropriate interest whereupon. It is submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Gohil on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had been suspended while he was in service vide an order dated 23.03.1987 and whereas the petitioner had submitted a representation on 16.01.2016 requesting for revocation of the said suspension and whereas acting upon the same the District and Sessions Judge, Jamnagar vide an order dated 31.03.2016 have been pleased to revoke the suspension of the present petitioner. It is further submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Gohil that the petitioner had thereafter retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation C/SCA/10178/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2021 on 31.07.2019 and whereas at the relevant point of time though the criminal cases were pending against the present petitioner, the appointing authority had given a certificate that no departmental inquiry was pending against the petitioner.

(2.) Learned Advocate Mr. Gohil would rely upon the Rule-5 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 and would submit that Rule 5 (1) (a) inter alia contemplates that after a suspension order has been passed against an employee, if the departmental proceedings are not initiated within a period of 90 days against the employee concerned then the suspension period would have to be reviewed by the authority concerned and it is only upon recording of special reasons for not initiating the departmental inquiry that the suspension period could be extended. Learned Advocate would submitted that after the petitioner had been suspended in the year 1987 till the suspension had been revoked in the year 2016, no review appears to have been carried out by the disciplinary authority and therefore according to learned Advocate after a period of 90 days from date of suspension that is 23.03.1987, the suspension order lost its efficacy and therefore the petitioner ought to be treated as in service after the 90 th days from the date of suspension and he should be given all benefits for the later period till the suspension had been revoked.

(3.) Learned Advocate would rely upon the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Miteshkumar Rajubhai Dantaniya Vs State of Gujarat reported in 2020 (1) GLR page no. 502 in support of his submission.