D D SADUTRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner belongs to the Indian Forest Service, which is one of the All India Services. He was posted as D F.O. R. C T. C, (River -cum -Timber Control Division) Jammu and during that posting, on 23 -4 -1976, a case of corruption came to be registered against him by the Anti Corruption Organisation with the result that respondent No. 1, acting under Rule 3 (2) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1959, vide Order No 193/FST of 1976 dated 15 -5 -76, placed the petitioner under suspension. While the petitioner was under suspension, he reached the age of superannuation on 31 -7 -76 and respondent No. 1 directed him to consider himself retired from service from the said date in terms of Rule 16 read with Rule 6 of All India Services(Death -cum -Retirement Benefits) Rules 1958 On account of the Corruption case, judicial proceedings in the form of a charge sheet under the Public Servant Prevention of Corruption Act 2006 was drawn up against the petitioner on 30 -3 -77 much after he had reached the age of superannuation and had retired from service. The judicial proceedings however, ended in the acquittal of the petitioner. It transpires that from the date when the petitioner was placed under suspension i.e. 15 -5 -76, till he retired from service on 31 -7 -76 he was paid only the subsistence allowance. The petitioner was not paid any pension on his retirement and his pension case remained pending with the authorities for a number of years and even then on 31 -3 -1980 only provisional pension was sanctioned in his favour After waiting for some time to get justice from respondents, to whom representations had been made by him, the petitioner has approached this court through the medium of this writ petition.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, since it was during the pendency of investigation into the charges of corruption by the Anti Corruption Organisation against him that he had reached the age of superannuation and was directed to consider himself retired with effect from 31 -7 -76 his earlier suspension stood automatically terminated thereby entitling him to full emoluments of pay etc for the period 15 -5 -76 to 31 -7 -76, the period during which he had received the subsistence allowance only. It is further urged by the petitioner that the delay in finalising his pension case was wholly arbitrary and unjustified and that on account of the unjustified withholding of his emoluments, he was entitled to get interest at 12% per annum, on his withheld pension, from the date it fell I due till the date of the tender of payment.

(3.) , It is also urged by the petitioner that the order of his retirement during the period when he was under suspension, with effect from 31 -7 -76, was against rules and the procedure laid down in the All India Services Manual. The precise submission of the petitioner is that while under suspension, he could not have been ordered to be retired, without the specific approval of the State Government and that since the State Government had not accorded any specific approval he should be deemed to continue in service till such time as the order of suspension is revoked and since there has been no specific order revoking his suspension he would be deemed to have continued in service till the disposal of the judicial proceedings, and in that view of the matter, he would be entitled to full salary till the date of the conclusion of the judicial proceedings and full pensionary benefits thereafter.