STATE OF HARYANA Vs. ZILE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the State against the order of learned Single Judge, setting aside the order treating period of suspension as leave of the kind due and directing to treat the said period as duty period.

(2.) The respondent was employed as Multi Purpose Health Worker and after rendering service for 40 years he retired on 30.4.2007. He was placed under suspension on 25.7.2003 and charge sheet for major penalty dated 9.2.2004 was served upon him under the provisions of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. He was reinstated on 21.4.2005. The Inquiry Officer gave report dated 18.10.2005 in favour of the respondent. However, disciplinary authority disagreed with the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer and served a show cause notice dated 27.1.2006, proposing punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. However, after considering the stand of the respondent, vide order dated 9.5.2006 minor penalty of warning was imposed and suspension period was ordered to be treated as leave of the kind due. The said order was challenged in the writ petition on the ground that the same was arbitrary and was passed without following the principles of natural justice. The impugned order was defended by filing written statement by taking the plea that disciplinary authority disagreed with the finding of Inquiry Officer and imposed penalty after giving due opportunity and in such a situation, the authority was competent to treat the suspension period as leave of the kind due.

(3.) Learned Single Judge upheld the plea of the respondent and held that in the facts and circumstances, treating suspension period as leave of the kind was not called for. It was also held that no notice was given separately for denying salary as was required under the relevant rules. Reliance was placed on judgments of this Court in Krishan Sewak v. State of Haryana and another,1997 4 RSJ 162, Dalip Singh v. State of Haryana and another, 2003 4 SCT 261 and Y.P. Sehgal v. State of Punjab and another,1992 2 SCT 179 holding that where punishment of censure was imposed, it was not fair to deny wages for suspension period, particularly when no separate notice was given before passing such order.