SHIV NARAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions have been filed by Shiv Narain and Dhanne Singh Rathore, who were placed under suspension by order dated 4.5.2006 & 3.5.2006 respectively. Petitioner -Shiv Narain approached this Court by filing the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5490/2008 against the aforesaid order of suspension. The writ petition was dismissed by order dated 30.5.2008 with liberty to the petitioner to file representation for revocation of suspension under Rule 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. Petitioner -Shiv Narain submitted such representation on 7.6.2008. The competent authority by order dated 2.12.2001 (Annexure -7) revoked the suspension of the petitioner. Similarly, petitioner Dhanne Singh Rathore was also placed under suspension by order dated 3.5.2006. He retired from services on 28.9.2007. While under suspension, he also submitted a representation for revocation of his suspension on 10.8.2006. The competent authority passed the order dated 21.7.2010 and held that final decision as to the settlement of the pension and retiral dues would be taken after completion of the judicial proceedings. The petitioners and four other employees of the respondent -department was proceeded against a criminal trial for offence u/s. 376(2)(B) of IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Hanumangarh vide judgement dated 8.1.2013 acquitted all the accused including the present petitioners. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Hanumangarh by order dated 11.1.2013 as on that basis revoked the suspension and directed that his suspension period shall be treated as spent on duty and that he shall be entitled to all the benefits for the period of suspension. Similarly another co -delinquent/co -accused Milkha Singh was also reinstated in service by order of the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Churu directing that since the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges by the trial Court, the departmental enquiry pending against him is dropped and that his period of suspension shall be treated as part of his service for all purpose.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners in the course of arguments cited the order dated 30.7.2013 passed in the case of Bachchu Singh Meena, who is also placed under suspension along with other five and he was also one of the accused in the criminal case. In his case too, the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel by order dated 30.7.2013, revoked his suspension in view of acquittal by the trial Court and directed that his period of suspension shall be treated as part of service for payment of entire salary/emoluments/allowances and the differential amount was ordered to be paid to him.

(3.) SHRI Sanjay Sharma, learned Government Counsel has submitted that while the order has been passed in the case of others regarding dropping of the departmental enquiry, but in the case of petitioners, such order has yet not been passed by the Director and, therefore, till that is not done, the case of the petitioners for pension cannot be finalised.