KULBIR SINGH MEHTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenges order copy of which is Annexure P-21 to the writ petition vide which the petitioner was reinstated in service and the period for which he remained under suspension was treated on duty but pay and allowances for the period of suspension were ordered to be restricted to the subsistence allowance already received by him during the period of suspension, and minor penalty by way of warning was imposed.

(2.) From the perusal of the entire paper-book it is revealed that minor penalty by way of warning was imposed on the petitioner. He remained under suspension from 22.1.1987 to 9.6.1988 and the same was revoked after departmental inquiry. No notice was issued to the petitioner before denying full salary to him for the suspension period. In this case the State has not cared even to file reply. The petitioner could have been denied full salary only after a notice was issued to him in that behalf. Admittedly, in this case, no such legal course was adopted. As such, there is not justified in refusing full salary to the petitioner during the period of suspension. No doubt the discretion lies with the punishing authority in the matter, but it is to be exercised in judicial manner and nor arbitrarily.

(3.) For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and Order Annexure P-21 is quashed in so far as it relates to the denial of full salary to the petitioner during suspension period. The respondents are directed to release the arrears of salary to the petitioner within two months. Under the facts and circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.