VASUDEV FULABHAI Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties when the Civil Application came up for hearing the main matter is taken for final hearing today.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is an Armed Police Constable and when he was working at Vadodara City as per order dated 4-3-1997, he was placed under suspension pending prosecution of the criminal case for the offence under Section 468, 471, 420, 506 and 120-b of IPC filed against the petitioner with Anand Police Station. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter from 18-9-1997 the subsistence allowance was increased to 75%. However, on 9-4-2002, the order came to be passed by the Dy. Police Commissioner, whereby he recorded that even when the petitioner was under suspension, criminal cases are lodged against the petitioner and he was found of indulging in criminal activities and, therefore, the subsistence allowance was stopped. It is that order of the Dy. Police Commissioner which is under challenge in this petition.

(3.) Mr.Supehia, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that so long as the petitioner is under suspension it is obligatory on the part of the department to pay subsistence allowance and he submitted that such subsistence allowance cannot be stopped until the departmental inquiry is completed or the criminal prosecution is concluded. Mr.Supehia has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of "Jagdamba Prasad Shukla vs. State of U.P. and others", reported at 2000 AIR SCW, 3047 for contending that suspended employee is entitled to subsistence allowance as of right and he has also relied upon another judgement of the Apex Court in the case of "B.D.Shetty and others v. M/s.Ceat Ltd. and others", reported at 2001 AIR SCW, 4422 for contending that the subsistence allowance must be paid and if the inquiry is not concluded within a stipulated time limit it must be increased and he submitted that in any event, there is no authority on the part of the respondent to stop the payment of subsistence allowance and, therefore, he contended that the order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the authority be directed to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner.