K.K. JAGGIA Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner K.K. Jaggia entered the service of the State of Punjab (Respondent) on 18th January, 1949, as Sub -Divisional Officer in the Irrigation Branch of the Public Works Department in the scale of 250 - -25 - -550/25 - -750, with usual allowances. While so employed on 16th May, 1956 he was placed under suspension with retrospective effect from 11th April, 1956, pending a departmental enquiry against him. On a civil suit brought by him, the order of his suspension was modified and he was treated as on duty from 11th April, 1956 to 15th May, 1956, and was awarded full pay and allowances for that period. He, however, continued to be under suspension till 6th October, 1961, when on completion of the departmental enquiry held against him he was dismissed from service. The order of the Petitioner's dismissal was later quashed by this Court on 22nd August, 1963, on his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution (Civil Writ No. 279 of 1962), on the finding that the departmental enquiry was vitiated because of the refusal to supply to the Petitioner previous statements of witnesses taken under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequent upon this verdict of the Court, the Petitioner was reinstated on 20th September, 1963, by an order of the Governor, Punjab (copy of which is Annexure E), but by the same order he was again placed under suspension with immediate effect pending completion of the departmental enquiry against him "after giving him a reasonable opportunity to defend himself". It was further stated in that order that during the period of suspension the Petitioner, K.K. Jaggia, would be allowed subsistence allowance admissible to Wm under Rule 1.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I. Part I.

(2.) DURING the subsequent enquiry (which, we are told, is still pending) the Petitioner applied for payment of the arrears of his full salary and allowances for the period if erring which he had remained suspended prior to the order off His dismissal, dated 6th October, 1961, as well as for the if period that had elapsed between the date of his dismissal and reinstatement. In reply, he received a copy of the note (annexure C) addressed by the Director -cum -Under Secretary (Vigilance Department), Punjab Government to the Secretary, Government, Punjab (Irrigation and Power Departments) directing that the Petitioner's claim be disposed of in accordance with the following decision of the Government:

(3.) SO far as the period between his dismissal and subsequent reinstatement is concerned, the Petitioner's, right to receive full pay and allowances was conceded in the return filed on behalf of the State. It was, however, asserted that before such payment could be made it was incumbent upon the Petitioner to disclose if he had earned anything during the period, since according to the rules a Government servant could not undertake any other gainful employment during this period. The Petitioner's claim for full pay and allowances for the period between his suspension and dismissal (16th May, 1956, to 8th October, 1961), was however, disputed on the plea that he was entitled only to subsistence allowance as fixed by the Competent Authority under Rule 7.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I, and the decision of the Government contained in annexure C referred to above on the point being in conformity with Rule 7.3 of the said Rules was valid.