M L ABROL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has retired from services. He was Asstt. Engineer in the Power Development Department (PDD) at the relevant time. He was incharge of the construction of childrenâ„¢s Hospital building way back in 1988. A portion of this building collapsed on 02 -05 -1988 resulting in casualties. The Government appointed an Inquiry Commission heard by Mr. Justice I.K. Kotwal (Retd.) vide SRO -149 of 1988 dated 06 -05 -1988 who recommended imposing of penalty as envisaged in the rules against the officers involved including the petitioner. Accordingly petitioner was issued a chargesheet on 10 -01 -1990. Consequently an inquiry committee was set up and Mr. S.D. Sharma, the then Chief Engineer was appointed as Inquiry Officer vide order No. Pw -211 of 1990 dated 17 -05 -1990. The inquiry officer submitted his recommendations and in the meanwhile petitioner retired from service. Latter the State respondent passed Govt. Order No. Pw -97 of 1993 dated 23 -02 -1993 holding that the petitioners conduct was not found without blame and ordered that his period of suspension shall not be treated as "period spend on duty". Petitioner feels agrieved of this order and has filed this petition assailing it on the plea that as no proper inquiry was conducted against him and no charge established the impugned order treating the period of suspension as "not on duty" was unsustainable. It is also submitted that his annual increments from 13 -11 -1988 could not be stopped resultantly and. if released, would enhance the rate of pension by more than Rs.448 per month. He also claims the benifit of the pay revision ordered vide SRO -75 of 1992 for the period under suspension. He has sought support from KLJ 59 and 1986 KLJ 6, 271 and 535.

(2.) IN the objections filed, it is submitted by the respondents that it was on consideration of the report of the Kotwal Commission and recommendation of the inquiry officer that petitioners conduct was found blameworthy and, therefore, his period of suspension could not be treated as a period spent on duty.

(3.) IT all comes to whether any inquiry was conducted against petitioner after his suspension whether he was associated with that inquiry and afforded an opportunity of being heard and whether his suspension could be said to be wholly unjustified to merit the period of suspension to be treated on duty,