ASIR ALI LASKAR Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12-3-2009 issued by the Director of Fisheries, Govt. of Meghalaya, Shillong (Respondent 2) converting the period of his suspension for 1796 days w.e.f. 14-11-2003 to 13-10-2008 as leave due and admissible under F.R. 53(5) of the Meghalaya Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules in the following manner: (i) barred leave for a period of 157 days w.e.f. 14-11-2003 to 18-4-2004; (ii) half pay leave for a period of 400 days w.e.f. 19-4-2004 to 23-5-2005 and (iii) extraordinary leave without pay and allowances for a period of 1239 days w.e.f. 24-5-2005 to 13-10-2008 after reinstatement him to his post even after he as punished with a penalty of withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect, which, according to him, amount to multiple punishments unauthorised by law.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of the writ petition, as pleaded by the Petitioner, may be briefly noted at the outset. He was initially working as Junior Grade Driver in the Office of the Directorate of Fisheries, Meghalaya, and was thereafter by the order dated 12-7-2002 promoted to Senior Grade. He was, however, placed under suspension w.e.f. 7-4-2005 under Rule 6(a) of the Assam Services Discipline and Appeal Rule, 1964 vide the Office Order dated 19-4-2005. A departmental enquiry was thereafter launched against him and on completion of the enquiry, he was reinstated to his service by resuming his duty on 14-10-2008. When no salary was released to him for sometime, he submitted his representation dated 20-1-2009 to the Respondent No. 2 requesting him to release his pending salaries along with other service benefits admissible under the rule. After repeated reminders, the Respondent No. 2 by his order dated 25-2-2009 allowed him to draw his pay and other allowances as admissible under the rules w.e.f. 14-10-2008. However, much to his consternation, the impugned order was issued. The representations filed by him to the Respondent authorities thereafter from time to time did not yield any fruit, which prompted him to file this writ petition for appropriate relief's.

(3.) The writ petition is opposed by the Respondents, who have now filed their affidavit-in-opposition. The contentions of the Respondents therein are that the impugned order does not amount to a penalty: it is merely a detail of conversion of his period of suspension by treating that period as on leave due and admissible as per the Office Order dated 19-9-2008. It is pointed out by the answering Respondents that the Petitioner never had an unblemished career and he, in fact, was also placed under suspension from service with effect from 14-11-2003 on the ground of misconduct and insubordination to controlling authorities. He was, however, reinstated to his service on 27-1-2005 without full pay and allowances when the charges could not be proved against him, but when he failed to resume his post, he was again placed under suspension w.e.f. 7-4-2005 as already noted. These are the main contentions of the answering Respondents. They, therefore, pray for dismissal of the writ petition, which is devoid of merits, with costs.