SHARAD CHANDRA SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court for grant of following reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India :

(2.) It is contended by the petitioner that while working as a Block Development Officer on 11.9.1985 ; he was served with a suspension order on the charges of committing irregularity in the utilisation of grants at Gyanpur Block of District Varanasi. The charge-sheet dated 5.2.1986 was served upon him to which he sent a reply dated 5.5.1986. The Enquiry Officer submitted an ex parte report dated 26.8.1986 whereafter a supplementary charge-sheet dated 2.4.1988 was served upon the petitioner. He sent his reply to that also on 12.5.1988 and after completion of the enquiry, the report dated 20.6.1989 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) was submitted. The disciplinary authority after proposing penalty on the basis of the enquiry report, served show cause notice upon the petitioner to which he sent his reply dated 31.5.1990. The punishing authority, vide order dated 21/24.11.1990 awarded punishment of dismissal against the petitioner. Aggrieved with the said order and the enquiry report the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court, being Writ Petition No. 3822 of 1991 and the Court, upon hearing the parties allowed the writ petition vide judgment dated 4.5.1998 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) and quashed the petitioners' dismissal order. The Court, however, remitted back the matter to the disciplinary authority to pass fresh orders in the light of the observation made in the judgment. The Court also directed the authorities to pass orders in accordance with law in respect of pension and other retiral benefits of the petitioner, since he had already retired from services during the intervening period in the year 1990. The S.L.P. preferred by the respondents against the aforesaid judgment of this Court before the Supreme Court was also dismissed on 23.8.1999.

(3.) The petitioner further contends that respondent No. 1, thereafter, issued show cause notice (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). The petitioner filed his reply (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) dated 8.9.1999. Thereafter, respondents passed the impugned punishment order dated 15.1.2000 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) directing recovery of Rs. 125.87 and to deduct 10% of the pension for one year. A direction (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) dated 19.2.2000 was also issued from the Government to the Commissioner Rural Development to pay the retiral benefits to the petitioner. The Government simultaneously issued an order vide Annexure-7 to the writ petition dated 19.2.2000 stating that no amount was payable to the petitioner in addition to what has already been paid to him as subsistence allowance during his suspension period. Thereafter, the petitioner on 22.5.2000 made a representation (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) and requested for the payment of the entire salary for the period of suspension. The petitioner's request, by a laconic order, was turned down by the Government, vide Annexure-9 to the writ petition. The matter for payment due to the petitioner, when came up before the Varanasi Treasury, a clarification was sought from the Government about petitioner's status. Vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition, the Government passed an order dated 17.7.2001 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) that the period of suspension should be considered as period In service and that the subsistence allowance as stated in the office memo (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) dated 7.6.2000 should be read as salary and allowance. Thereafter, the petitioner made another representation (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) dated 8.8.2001 for release of full salary with allowances for his suspension period, but that representation was rejected by the Government, vide Annexure-12 to the writ petition. The petitioner contends that once the period of suspension has been accepted as service period he is legally entitled to get full salary with all allowances of that period. Under Rule 54A of the Fundamental Rules as contained in Financial Handbook Volume (II), Part (ii) to (iv) he is entitled to the full salary for the suspension period with all allowances during the suspension period.