ROHTAS SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has raised a challenge to the order dated 17.1.2003 passed by the Transport Commissioner, Haryana, vide which the claim of the petitioner for payment of increased suspension allowance from 50% to 75% as contemplated under Rule 7.2. of the C.S.R. Rules volume 1 Part (1) has been declined by the respondents.

(2.) Petitioner joined the service of the State as a Clerk in the Haryana Transport Department and was posted at Bhiwani. On 5.4.2000 a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner-requiring him to file reply thereto within 15 days. On 5.7.2000 petitioner submitted his reply denying the Article of Charges. Disciplinary Authority found the reply of the petitioner unsatisfactory and consequently Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct a regular enquiry on the basis of the said charge-sheet vide order dated 26.9.2002 the petitioner was placed under suspension. The enquiry continued. On 9.4.2001 the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents to increase the subsistence allowance payable to him from 50% to 75% as the period of six months had lapsed. Having failed to receive any response from the respondents, the petitioner even served a legal notice upon the respondents on 8.3.2002, but again to no effect. Compelled with this situation, the petitioner filed CWP No. 17437 of 2002, which was disposed of vide order dated 29.10.2002 directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the basis of the legal notice served upon them by the petitioner. The request of the petitioner for grant of enhanced suspension allowance and arrears was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 20.2.2003 giving rise to the filing of the present petition.

(3.) The challenge by the petitioner to the impugned order is two-fold. Firstly it is an arbitrary exercise of power. Secondly, that on the correct interpretation of Rule 7.2 the respondents are duty bound to increase the suspension allowance to 75% as there is no delay attributable to the petitioner in the departmental enquiries. The respondents have filed reply where it is stated that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law and does not suffer from any infirmity; It is further stated that a show cause notice dated 23.4.2003 was served upon the petitioner as to why his services be not terminated by way of punishment. According to the respondents, the matter is pending at that stage, subject to the satisfaction of the conditions stated in the rule. The petitioner according to the respondents, has misappropriated an amount of Rs. 24 lacs along with other employees and as such there is a likelihood of imposition of major punishment. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that on the bare reading of Rule 7.21 of the Rules there is complete direction vested in the respondents to grant or not, increase in the suspension allowance payable to the employees during pendency of departmental proceedings. At this stage it will be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of Rule 7.2, as under;-