RASIK BEHARI NIGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner seeks to quash the order Annexure 2 dated 6.2.79 whereby the petitioner has been denied subsistence allowance over and above what has already been drawn by him. The petitioner was placed under suspension and he was charge-sheeted, but thereafter, the petitioner was retired compulsorily under Rule 242 of R.S.R. and disciplinary proceedings have been dropped against him. The petitioner's grievance is that no subsistence allowance could he withheld as the petitioner was retired compulsorily and disciplinary proceedings have been dropped against him. The petitioner should have been paid the entire salary which was payable to him as if he was never suspended. We find force in the above contention of the petitioner. When disciplinary proceedings have been dropped, its natural consequence would he that the petitioner would be entitled to full salary as if he was never suspended nor charge-sheeted. According to the petitioner he was suspended on 16.7.74 and compulsorily retired on 7.9.75. Thus the petitioner would he entitled to get full salary as well as increment of the period from 16.7.74 to 7.9.75.

(2.) Accordingly, the respondents are directed to make the payment of full salary to the petitioner including increment for the period 16.7.74 to 7.8.75. If any amount is due from the The payment in pursuance of this order shall be petitioner it would be open to the concerned made to the petitioner within 3 months from authority to deduct in accordance with the rules. today.