SUKHDEV PARSHAD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a member of the Indian Administrative Service and is, thus, governed by the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter called the Rules), in regard to disciplinary matters. He was suspended from service on Feb. 14,1978, vide order Annexure P. 1, wherein it was stated that whereas the investigation relating to criminal charges was pending against the petitioner, who is a member of the Indian Administrative Service, borne on the Haryana Cadre, the Governor of Haryana in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-r. (3) of R. 3 of the Rules, places the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect. Later on, as stated in the return, the cases of the petitioner and those of some others, were reviewed by the State Government and it was decided that the action relating to the prosecution of the petitioner and others should be dropped and only departmental action be taken against them wherever warranted. It was also decided that the petitioner and other Government servants who were then under suspension in those cases be reinstated without prejudice to the result of the proposed departmental action. In pursuance of the aforesaid decision of the State Government, vide order dated Sept. 14, 1979, Annexure P. 2, the petitioner was reinstated to the service. The said order reads

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as soon as the petitioner was reinstated to the service, he was entitled to his full pay and allowances etc. for the period of his suspension from service, as under the cirucmstances, he will be deemed to have been exonerated of the criminal charges instituted against him which were withdrawn by the State Government itself. In support of this contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma V/s. State of U. P., 1962 AIR(SC) 1334 , K. K. Jaggia v. State of Punjab, 1965 67 PunLR 1092 Kavanoor Panchayat, Kavanoor v. M. Kunhikrishna Marar,1980 3 SLR 745 and Jatindra Nath Mondal V/s. State of West Bengal, 1969 AIR(Cal) 461. The decision in Civil Writ Petn. No. 6563 of 1974 (Piara Singh V/s. Haryana State Electricity Board) decided on July 7, 1975, by Tewatia, J., (copy Annexure P. 5), has also been relied upon by the learned counsel in this behalf.

(3.) I have gone through all the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but none of them is applicable to the facts of the present case. In Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma's case, K. K. Jaggia's case, M. Kunhikrishna Marar's case, and Jatindra Nath Mondal's case , the orders of dismissal from service were set aside by the Court or the Authority and hence it was held, in all those cases, that once the order of dismissal was set aside by the competent Court or Authority the delinquent was entitled to his full pay and allowances for the suspension period because in that case, it will be deemed that the suspension was wholly unjustified. There is no such finding of any Court in the present case. The criminal cases, which were registered against the petitioner were withdrawn at the initial stage and, therefore, under the circumstances, there was no question of exonerating the petitioner from the criminal charges pending against him. The same were withdrawn as the State Government decided to proceed against the petitioner by way of departmental enquiry. There is no order of a criminal Court either of discharge or acquittal of the petitioner. No such allegation was either made in the writ petition, nor any such order has been produced in the Court. Thus, the case of the petitioner is clearly distinguishable as no Court has ever exonerated the petitioner of the criminal charges which were registered against him. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim his full pay and allowances for the period of his suspension from service on that analogy. Moreover, in Govt, of India v.. Tarak-nath Ghosh, 1971 AIR(SC) 823 relied upon on behalf of the respondent, it has been observed in para 6 of the judgment that it would not be proper to interpret the provisions of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 by reference to the provisions of other rules even if they were made by or under the authority of the President of India. It was further observed that the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, as they stood at the relevant time, were a self- contained Code and the Court has to examine the provisions thereof to find out whether the order passed on the petitioner in that case was justified. In the present case, there are specific rules which govern the petitioner and the relief, if any, can be granted under the Rules only, if available.