STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Vs. KRISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the intra-court appeal is to order dated 05.05.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge partly allowing the writ petition by setting aside order (Annexure P-35) dated 23.07.2013 and directing the respondents to calculate enhanced subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner on completion of 6 months beyond the date of suspension till 04.9.2013 and to disburse the amount payable within 3 months of the date of order.

(2.) Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the intra-court appeal are that the petitioner challenged order (Annexure P-35) vide which his prayer for enhancement of subsistence allowance beyond suspension period of six months was rejected purportedly in the light of Rule 7.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) as applicable to the State of Haryana.

(3.) Before the learned Writ Court, the stand of the appellants was that the petitioner was deemed to be under suspension on account of his conviction for the commission of offences under Sections 324, 326, 452 read with Section 34 IPC and awarding of sentence of imprisonment of one year and two years, respectively along with fine of Rs. 500/- each vide order of conviction and sentence dated 09.02.2007. In view of upholding of the conviction and sentence in appeal vide order dated 15.07.2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner was taken in custody, consequently placed under suspension vide office order dated 15.01.2010 with effect from the date when he was taken into police custody. The department also initiated the process for dismissal of the petitioner from service on account of his conduct which led to conviction but the said proceedings were ordered to be kept in abeyance in view of order dated 13.07.2011, passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No.1440 of 2008. In the circumstances, learned Deputy Advocate General contended that order Annexure P-35 had been correctly passed in accordance with the Rules, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to enhancement of subsistence allowance. Learned Deputy Advocate General contended that the learned writ Court had without appreciating the controversy in the correct perspective, partly allowed the writ petition and while upholding the order of suspension dated 15.01.2010 with effect from 15.07.2008 directed subsistence allowance payable to be increased from 50% to 75% on expiry of six months from the date of suspension up to 04.09.2013.