AMIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer made in the present petition is for quashing of impugned order dated 16.9.2011 (Annexure P -2) passed by respondent No. 2, whereby, suspension period of the petitioner has been treated as leave of the kind due, without issuing any show cause notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing as well as order dated 3.10.2011 (Annexure P -3) passed by respondent No. 2, whereby, sanction has been accorded for treating 444 days as earned leave and 8 days as half pay leave and exhausting the same by treating the suspension period as "leave of the kind due".

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in the respondent -Department. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 6.11.2009 on having been booked in case FIR No. 61 dated 22.9.2009 registered under Section 302 IPC at Police Station Sadiq, District Faridkot. After facing trial, the petitioner was acquitted of the charge vide judgment dated 9.11.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Faridkot. On acquittal, the petitioner submitted an application dated 6.12.2010 requesting respondent No. 2 to reinstate him in service. Meanwhile, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.1.2011. However, the petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 16.9.2011. The period of suspension w.e.f. 6.11.2009 to 31.1.2011 was ordered to be treated as "leave of the kind due".

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and impugned orders have been passed contrary to the provisions of Rule 7.3 (b) (i) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules), which governs determination of allowances paid to the suspended employee on his reinstatement. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the Government employee is granted benefit of conversion of earned leave into money upto a maximum period of 300 days. The object of amending Rule 8.21 of the Rules is to provide an incentive to the employees to devote more time in Government service and to compensate those employees who do not avail a particular amount of leave during their service. Learned counsel has also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mai Chand Vs. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others : 2008 (4) SCT 387 and Bikkar Singh Vs. Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board and another : 2013 (2) PLR 819, in support of his contentions.