K.N.OJHA Vs. STATE.OF H.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sh. K.N. Ojha, applicant retired as Deputy Director Horticulture on 30.8.2003 from Kandi Project, Solan. On 2.9.1998, he was placed under suspension under sub -rule (1) of the Rule 10 of the Central Civil Service Classification Control and Appeal, Rules, 1965 (in short Rules). The suspension orders were revoked vide order dated 23.2.1999 Annexure A -2. The applicant was charge sheeted. At the close of the inquiry penalty of stoppage of two increments without commulative effect was imposed vide order dated 8.3.2001 Annexure A -5. He made representation against the order of penalty. Consequently the competent authority had reduced the penalty of two increments without commulative effect by one increment vide Annexure A -6. Though he was recommended for full pay and allowances but the period of suspension was treated on duty and he was not held entitled for salary beyond what was paid to him as subsistence allowance vide order Annexure A -7. Therefore, the applicant by way of filing this OA has assailed the impugned orders seeking the following reliefs: "(i) That the impugned orders dated 17.6.2002, 10.10.2002, 24.4.2003 may be quashed and set aside and the respondent may be directed to pay full pay and allowances to the applicant during the suspension period with further directions to treat the suspension period as on duty for all intents and purposes. (ii) That the respondent may be directed to pay full pay and allowances to the applicant with effect from 2.9.1998 to 23.2.1999 with a reasonable period. (iii) That as the applicant has been dragged into the present litigation unnecessarily. The respondent -department may be directed to pay the interest to the applicant on the withheld amount of his salary at the interest rate of some nationalised bank. (iv) That the respondent may be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case for the perusal of this Honble Tribunal. (v) That the respondent may be directed to pay the cost of the present litigation to the applicant. (vi) Any other order deemed just and proper may be passed in favour of the applicant, keeping in view the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove."

(2.) There is practically no controversy so far as the factual aspects are concerned such as placing the applicant under suspension, imposition of penalty of stoppage of one increment as well as passing the impugned orders whereby he was not held entitled to salary beyond what was paid to him as subsistence allowance. It is, however averred that though suspension period was treated as duty period, but no injustice has been done to the applicant, therefore, OA is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Abhilasha Kumari learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.