GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined the respondents-department as a Patwari on 4. 11. 1977. On 1. 10. 1980, his services were regularised. He crossed the Efficiency Bar w. e. f. 1. 11. 1982. However, on 22. 6. 1988. he was placed under suspension on the basis of pseudonymous/anonymous complaint. No explanation of the petitioner was sought before placing him under suspension. He was kept under suspension for more than four years i. e. from 22. 6. 88 to 10. 1. 1993. During all this period, no regular enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner approached respondent No. 2 with a prayer for reinstatement. However, the claim of the petitioner was not considered by respondent No. 2 at all. Aggrieved against the unjustified victimisation of respondent No. 2, the petitioner approached respondent No. 1. After making due enquiry, respondent No. 1, Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab found the complaint to be false and frivolous and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner. This order was passed on 29. 9. 1992. He was ultimately reinstated in service on 30. 12. 1992. During all this period, the petitioner had been paid the subsistence allowance only from 22. 6. 1998 to August, 1985. His lien was transferred from Tehsil Rampura Phool to Tehsil Mansa. He was not given posting order in District Bhathinda and he was directed to approach Collector Mansa for getting the posting order On 16. 8. 1993 petitioner was called for personal hearing by respondent No. 3. He was informed that since he had not been allocated to District Mansa, he should correspond with the District Collector, Bhathinda for posting order. Since the petitioner failed to get the posting order inspite of the orders for reinstatement having been passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, he again approached respondent No. 1 on 27. 9. 1993 seeking a direction to the Collector, Bhatinda, respondent No. 2 to give him the posting order. It was only on 18. 1. 1995 that the requisite directions were given by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 to give the posting order to the petitioner. Inspite of the direction for reinstatement on 29. 9. 1992, the petitioner was. not given posting order till 16. 08. 1995 when he was posted as Assistant Officer Kanungo in Tehsil Phool, District Bhatinda. No orders were passed as to how the period of suspension from 22. 6. 1988 to 10. 1. 1993 was to be treated. The provision of Rule 7. 3b of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-I Part-I was, therefore, not compiled with. During the period of the suspension of the petitioner, persons junior to him had also been promoted. He, therefore, made a representation seeking the relief of promotion on 2. 9. 1996. This representation was accepted by the Commissioner on 3. 4. 997. It was ordered that the petitioner be granted his original seniority w. e. f. 1. 10. 1980. It was noticed that the name of the petitioner figures at Sr. No. 5 of the Seniority List and officials standing on subsequent numbers have since been promoted. It was directed that since Patwaris junior to the petitioner have been promoted, he should be promoted from the date the juniors were promoted subject to the outcome of CWP No. 4591 of 1996. This order was also not implemented by respondent No. 2. In the final seniority list of Patwaris working in District Bhatinda, the name of the petitioner figured at Sr. No. 5 while those of his juniors who had been promoted figured at Sr. Nos. 8, 11 and 13. These juniors were promoted as Kanungos on 28. 6. 1995 and 11. 9. 1997. Aggrieved against the continuous harassment, the petitioner filed CWP No. 17818 of 1997. The writ petition was decided on 4. 5. 1998 by this Court with the following observations:

(2.) EVEN after the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner was only appointed as a Kanungo in his own pay scale. The petitioner was, therefore, constrained to file review of the order dated 29. 5. 1998. The review was partly allowed and it was held that the petitioner was entitled to get the pay scale of the Kanungo. In the meantime, respondent No. 2 had directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rampura Phool to hold an enquiry regarding the period of suspension and also the alleged absence from duty w. e. f. 11. 1. 1993 to 16. 8. 1995 and from 21. 12. 95 to 20. 1. 1997. Even in this enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated. The Enquiry Officer observed as follows:-"i have reached this conclusion that the charge of absence from duty against the petitioner is not proved. "

(3.) ON 24. 11. 1998 the report of the Enquiry Officer-was accepted. The charge-sheet served on the petitioner was filed. It was further directed that the period from 10. 1. 1993 to 16. 8. 1995 and from 21. 12. 1995 to 20. 1. 1997 be treated as leave of the kind due. The petitioner again had to seek review of the order passed by respondent No. 2 dated 24. 11. 1998. He prayed that a decision be given as to how the period of suspension from 22. 6. 88 to 10. 1. 1993 is to be treated. By order dated 13. 1,1999, respondent No. 2 decided that the petitioner was entitled to arrears of pay from 22. 6. 88 to 30. 8. 89. This was the period for which the petitioner had already received the subsistence allowance. He was deprived of the entire monetary benefits for the remaining period.