SYED HAFIZ ALLAH Vs. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under article 32 (2 -A) of the Constitution of India and under section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir State. The relevant facts which have given rise to this present application briefly stated are as below: -

(2.) THE petitioner was working against a permanent post as Camp -clerk to the D.F.O. Plantation Division, Srinagar, on 26 -8 -1966 when he was suspended vide Annexure A to the petition. There are many matters which have been narrated and raised in the petition but it is not necessary to go into them in detail because the position is that the suspension order continued and the enquiry which was being held was not terminated, the petitioner came up to this Court in a writ petition No: of 148 of 1969 and there he also made a similar grievance that he was under suspension and the enquiry was not being terminated and that he was naturally not getting the full salary for that period. The matter came up before this court in the aforesaid writ petition on 14 -4 -1970 and there this order was recorded that the learned Deputy Advocate General has made a statement at the bar to the effect that the respondent will conclude the enquiry against the petitioner as early as possible without any delay and it was on this assurance held out by the Deputy Advocate General, the petitioner did not want to press the petition and that petition was dismissed as not pressed. A long time thereafter again elapsed with the result that the enquiry was not concluded. It may also be mentioned here that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, circumstances have been narrated to show as to how things were out of control and the enquiry could not be concluded. Now whatever may be the position was that the enquiry had not been concluded and it has not yet been concluded. The petitioner thereafter on 21 -10 -1971 filed this present petition, in this present petition the main grievance was to the effect that a protected enquiry, which was against the principles of natural justice was being carried on and the petitioner was being put to a lot of harassment and since the suspension was in force, he was not getting his full salary also A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and in para 4 it has been stated that in view of the fact however, that the enquiry got prolonged the suspension order against the petitioner has been withdrawn and he has been reinstated as already intimated to the Honble court. I may refer in this concession to the aforesaid order which is order. F. O. No: 50 of 1972 dated 25 -1 -1972 and reads as under: -

(3.) THIS order clearly shows that the suspension order as against the petitioner has been vacated and he has been reinstated. Since there has been such a reinstatement the petitioner, therefore cannot have any grievance with regard to the second of this order which is to the effect that the matter of allowance payable to Shri Hafizullah for the period of his suspension shall also be decided when the aforesaid enquiry is concluded. Under the relevant rules an officer under suspension is entitled to certain portion of allowance and I presume he must be getting it. In case he has not been receiving the same, he is entitled to get the same. During the period of suspension, an officer is not entitled to full salary and by this order quoted above, this full salary has not been allowed and this matter will be decided after the conclusion of the enquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted firstly that the protected enquiry itself is illegal and stands vitiated on account of flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore the whole enquiry should be quashed.