LEHNA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lehna Singh, a driver serving in a office of General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh, through present petition filed by him under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release his monthly salary w.e.f. March 11, 1989 to February 1, 1991 as he was reinstated vide orders (Annexures P-1 and P-2) dated January 24, 1991 and February 6, 1991 respectively.

(2.) Brief facts on which the relief aforesaid rests, reveal that the petitioner was suspended on March 11, 1989 and a charge-sheet was issued against him on March 21, 1989. Show cause notice proposing to terminate his service and restricting his pay and allowances during the period of suspension, was issued to him on January 18, 1990. However, vide order dated August 25, 1989, passed by the Punishing Authority, he was reinstated. After enquiry when the report was submitted, the matter was considered by the disciplinary authority and vide orders dated February 12, 1990, his services were terminated. It was also held that he shall not be entitled to any salary during the suspension period. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal which came up for hearing before the Transport Commissioner, Haryana on January 24, 1991 and it was held that the enquiry was not conducted properly. Therefore, the Appellate Authority set aside the orders passed by respondent No. 2. However, it was left upon for the Punishing Authority to proceed afresh in the matter and hold proper enquiry if it was considered necessary.

(3.) The cause of petitioner has been opposed and in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it has been pleaded that the case of petitioner regarding the departmental enquiry even after reinstating him as per the orders passed by the Appellate Authority, is pending before the Enquiry Officer and he cannot seek back wages till the decision of that case.