NITIN JAGDISHBHAI PATEL Vs. VASTRAL NAGAR PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk vide resolution No.21 dated 29/6/95 of the Respondent No.1 and in pursuance thereof he joined that post on 1/7/1995. Later on on 5/7/95 the Gram Panchayat was reconstituted as Vastral Municipal Borrough. In connection with a case of corruption under the order dated 26/11/96 of the respondent Nos.2 the petitioner was placed under suspension. Anti Corruption Bureau asked sanction for prosecution of the petitioner which was declined. However, the District Collector, Ahmedabad intervened in the matter and in pursuance of his letter the respondent No.1 granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioner on 21/2/97. The petitioner, in this Special Civil Application, is praying for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 26/11/96 of the respondent No.1 placing him under suspension. Second prayer is made for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 21/2/97 of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 granting there under sanction for his prosecution. A prayer has also been made for direction to the respondents to pay subsistence allowance to him from 26/11/96. The prayer for interim relief is made for stay of both the aforesaid orders.

(2.) The petition was placed in the court for preliminary hearing on 17/4/98. On that date a statement has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner does not challenge the order of the respondent No.2 under which he was placed under suspension and further confines this petition only to the nonpayment of subsistence allowance to him by the respondent. From this statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner has given up the challenge to both the impugned orders of the respondents, first under which he was placed under suspension and second under which the sanction has been granted for his prosecution. So, the dispute now remains of the claim of the petition for subsistence allowance during the suspension period.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No.1 placed the petitioner under suspension and it is its legal obligation to pay to the petitioner subsistence allowance. It has next been contended that by placing the petitioner under suspension on the ground a criminal case is pending for investigation against him, the relation of employer and employee does not come to an end and the petitioner has been suspended from the services so he may not get full salary but subsistence allowance is to be given to him. Lastly it is contended that the action of the respondent No.1 to withhold the payment of the subsistence allowance to the petitioner is contrary to Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India.