GORAKH NATH RAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri K.M. Misra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent.

(2.) Impugned order of punishment is only of 'Censure' and since petitioner has retired, therefore, to that extent it has rendered infructuous. The next order which is under challenge is dated 20.02.2006 whereby the State Government has denied full salary to petitioner for the period he remained under suspension.

(3.) It is contended that under Fundamental Rule 54-B the competent authority shall take a decision about the amount to be paid to the Government Servant during the period of suspension (not less than the subsistence allowance already received by him) after giving show cause notice to him with respect to quantum proposed and after considering the representation, if any, made by him. But in the present case, no such notice was given to petitioner therefore, impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice.