MADAN PAL Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUNIL Ambwani, J. By an order dated 13-6-1989 passed by Manager, Rashtriya Kisan Inter College, Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar, in pursuance to the letter issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar on 3-6-1989 the petitioner was suspended on account of his involvement in crime case No. 43 of 1989, under Section 396 I. P. C. and crime case No. 47 of 1989, under Section 302 I. P. C. Sessions Trial No. 241 of 1990 and 16 of 1990, respectively were initiated against the petitioner under Section 395/396 I. P. C. and Section 302 I. P. C. respectively.

(2.) IT is alleged by learned Standing Counsel that the miscellaneous case No. 21 of 1990 for giving false evidence ended in conviction and against which the petitioner had preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 330 of 1991, which was allowed on July 5, 1999. However, it was provided in the judgment dated 5-7- 1999, Annexure-11 to the writ petition, that considering the facts and circumstances of the case the conviction will not adversely affect the service career of the accused.

(3.) I have heard Sri Pradeep Saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri K. K. Chand and learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. Petitioner has relied upon Regulation 42 of Chapter III under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, which reads as under:- " (42) A suspended employee if reinstated, shall be paid the difference between his salary and subsistence allowance already received by him. " It has been submitted by Sri Pradeep Saxena Counsel for petitioner that this Regulation does not leave any option with disciplinary authority or the District Inspector of Schools to withhold or to reduce the salary, which the petitioner is liable to be paid upon his reinstatement. In this context, it is relevant to mention that under Rule 54 (2) of the U. P. Fundamental Rules, Chapter II, paras 2 to 4 whenever a Government servant is reinstated or in the case of suspension, it is held that it was wholly un-justified, the Government servant shall be given full pay and allowances of which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or suspended, as the case maybe. This sub-rule 2 has been interpreted by this Court, that in reaching such decision, an enquiry is to be made giving opportunity to the employee to show firstly that the suspension was wholly un-justified, and secondly he was not gainfully employed anywhere during the period of suspension. However, in the case of an employee of aided college, Regulation 42 will prevail and unless this Regulation is amended, the suspended employee becomes entitled to get difference between his salary and subsistence allowance already received by him.