B.D. SINGLA Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working as a Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the State of Haryana. Vide order dated 8th April, 1986 (copy Annexure P-1 to the writ petition), the petitioner effect. It was mentioned in the suspenstion with immediate effect. It was mentioned in the suspension order that he would be paid subsistence allowance as admissible under the rules. Without serving any charge-sheet, the order of suspension was revoked on 28th August, 1987 which was of course without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings to be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner rejoined his duty with effect from 1st September, 1987. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at the bar that a charge-sheet was served somewhere in January, 1989 and he gave reply within the stipulated period and the matter rests there. However, the learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to vouchsafe this fact.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once an order of reinstatement has been passed, though even pending departmental enquiry an order under Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I (as applicable to the State of Haryana) (hereinafter called the Rules), had to be passed by the competent authority as to how the period of suspension was to be treated and how much pay/allowances were admissible for the relevant period. He has submitted that the pendency of enquiry or culmination thereof has nothing to do for the passing of the order by the competent Authority under Rule 7.3 of the Rules. Rule 7.3 of the Rules may be noticed :-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention, has relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in R.P. Kapur v. Union of India and another, 1967 AIR(P&H) 417 It was held as under :-