SATPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner belongs to the education service in Govt. of Punjab and teaches school in the language subject of Punjabi. He was appointed in 1978 as a Punjabi teacher. He was promoted to the post of Punjabi Master in June, 1994 and his case for promotion to the post of Lecturer was recommended by the Principal of the School. He was eligible in the year 2000 for the post but for personal reasons had to forego his right by submitting an affidavit in Sept., 2000 to that effect. Subsequently, a public notice was issued by the department in March, 2003 informing stakeholders that promotion cases were coming on to be decided and Punjabi Masters belonging to the scheduled caste category as who have held the feeder category post since Dec., 1995, were to be considered. His case was not recommended.

(2.) On 12th Aug., 2006, an FIR was filed against the petitioner for commission of offences of rape and murder in Police Station Phillaur. He was placed under suspension. The case went to trial but he was acquitted on 28th Nov., 2008. He was reinstated to service on 9th July, 2009. Back in office, the petitioner made a representation claiming benefits of difference of salary during the suspension period. When the benefit was not given to him, he approached this Court in CWP No.822 of 2010 which was disposed of by this Court on 20th Aug., 2010 with the direction to the respondents to take a decision on the subject representation within two months. A further opportunity was granted to him to make a representation claiming salary for the period spent under suspension. A representation was filed in Oct., 2010 relying on the provisions of rule 7.3(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I. However, no action was taken which brought the petitioner to Court in COCP No.989 of 2011 which came up for hearing on 18th May, 2011 and was disposed of on the basis of an affidavit filed by State inter alia mentioning that the claim of the petitioner is to be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for retrospective claim for promotion which shall be constituted within a period of 2 months to consider the petitioner's case. Despite the order in contempt, no action was taken. The petitioner filed another contempt petition No.1438 of 2011 which came up for hearing on 16th Jan., 2012. After notice, the State produced a speaking order dated 12th Jan., 2012 deciding the petitioner's representation. The contempt proceedings were dropped. However, liberty was given to the petitioner to impugn the speaking order, if so advised, in the matter of retrospective promotion as Lecturer. However, the Court observed that as regards payment of salary to the petitioner for the suspension period, the respondents were directed to consider the same in accordance with the rules and pass an appropriate order within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

(3.) In the light of the observations made by this Court on 16th Jan., 2012, the Director Public Instructions (SE), Punjab passed an order dated 13th March, 2012 declining the prayer for arrears of salary over and above the subsistence allowance already paid for the period of suspension from 12th Aug., 2006 to 27th Nov., 2008. He was held entitled to full pay and allowances for the period 28th Nov., 2008 to 8th July, 2009 when he was reinstated in service. His suspension period was treated spent on duty for all other remaining purposes. It is recorded in the order that suspension was as a result of the petitioner remaining in police remand/judicial custody for more than 48 hours and, therefore, it cannot be said that the suspension was unjustified. Rule 7.3(b) (supra) prescribes that the suspension period of a Government employee has to be treated as spent on duty for all purposes and intents, if the said suspension is found to be wholly unjustified. The rule obligated the competent authority to suspend the petitioner on his arrest in a police case and for remaining in police remand and in judicial custody.