MADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order dated 18.12.1989 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner was placed under suspension and directed to be paid the subsistence allowance under Rule 7.2 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume I Part I. He was reinstated vide order dated 31.7.1992 (Annexure P/3). It was, however, mentioned in the said order that the reinstatement of the petitioner was without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him as a result of the departmental inquiry. Since the petitioner was not paid his salary for the period of suspension, he made various representations, which were not considered with the result that he filed the present writ petition with the prayer for payment of salary for the aforesaid period alongwith interest.

(2.) In their reply, the respondents have submitted that while working as teacher in Government High School Mahawati, the petitioner was placed under suspension as he allegedly wrote a filthy letter to a girl student. Father of the said girl lodged the FIR against the petitioner with the police. The petitioner was tried in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat, and ultimately acquitted on account of non-production of the evidence. The departmental proceedings could not be finalised on account of the alleged pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner. After his acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner was served with a notice under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (P & A) Rules, 1987 on January 27, 1995, which was ultimately converted into a minor punishment under Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules.

(3.) The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 18.12.1989 and reinstated on 31.7.1992. It is also admitted that the petitioner was directed to be paid the subsistence allowance for the said period. It is also not denied that upon his reinstatement, no order was passed with respect to payment of salary for the period he remained under suspension. It is now conceded that in the departmental enquiry, the petitioner has been decided to be punished by imposing a minor penalty. In the absence of any order to the contrary, the respondents were not justified in withholding the salary of the petitioner for the period of suspension after his reinstatement. The acknowledged principle is that upon reinstatement, a civil servant is entitled to all the consequential benefits unless directed otherwise. This Court in Raj Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 1997 3 SCT 474, Civil Writ Petition No. 5757/1994, decided on August 16, 1994, considered a similar plea as advanced by the respondents, justifying their action on the ground that since an enquiry was contemplated against the petitioner, he was not entitled to the grant of relief, as prayed for in his petition. It was held :-