Y.P. SEHGAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is squarely covered by the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court reported as M. Gopal Krishna Naidu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1968 Supreme Court 240 and Rattan Singh Chaudhary Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1971(2) S.L.R. 692 .

(2.) So far as the illegality of the directions contained in the impugned order dated 19th Dec., 1990, Annexure P-3, is concerned, by which the petitioner has been held not entitled to the arrears of salary and allowances beyond the subsistence allowance he was paid during the period of suspension. commencing from 7th March, 1990 to 19th Dec., 1990, suspension of the petitioner was ordered as some allegations were levelled against him and disciplinary action was under contemplation under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. However, after considering the reply ply to the charge-sheet, the matter was dropped only by awarding minor punishment of censure to the petitioner and he was reinstated on 27th Dec., 1990, as he was going to superannuate on attaining the age of 58 years on 31st Dec., 1990. In these circumstances, when the petitioner has been reinstated and the proposed disciplinary action against him has resulted in the imposition of minor punishment of censure, it is neither permissible in law nor fair to deny to him the arrears of salary and allowances beyond the subsistence allowance granted to him during the period of suspension. Otherwise also, as already noted above, it is a settled rule of Jaw that if an employee has to be disallowed the arrears of salary and allowances and he has to be paid nothing beyond the subsistence allowance, an opportunity of hearing by issuing a notice to him has to be granted, without which the impugned action would be wholly arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. Since no such opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, the same is quashed, being violative of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is held entitled to all the arrears of salary and allowances, alongwith other retiring and pensionary benefits, to which he would have been entitled under the rules, had the impugned order dated 19th Dec., 1990, not been passed. The respondents are directed to release the aforesaid monetary benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.