DHARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The only submission made was that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide Annexure-1. However, his suspension has been revoked but then he has not been paid the admissible emoluments for the period of suspension as required by Rule 54. Learned counsel submitted that when he was placed under suspension vide Annexure-1 on account of pendency of the criminal case, and in that criminal case he has been acquitted vide Annexure-2 in view of the judgment of this Court in Manjeet Singh Vs. District Collector, Sri Ganganagar S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 456/2000 decided on 17.12.2000, the petitioner is entitled to have direction to be issued to the respondents to make payment of full salary and allowances during the period of suspension.

(2.) I have considered the submissions. So far factual aspect is concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was suspended vide Annexure-1, it is also not in dispute that the petitioner was acquitted vide Annexure-2, and passing of the order Annexure R/1 dt. 1.3.2005 is also not in dispute, and in this Annexure R/1 at page-3 the petitioner has been ordered to be reinstated with immediate effect, and vide this order Annexure R/1 the petitioner has been imposed a penalty of with-holding of one grade increment with cumulative effect.

(3.) In Manjeet Singh's case the facts were that the petitioner therein was involved in a criminal case, and was put under suspension vide order dt. 22.12.1994. Then vide judgment dt. 16.9.1999 he was acquitted, and vide order dt. 22.11.1999 he was reinstated but had not been paid any amount other than subsistence allowance paid during the suspension period, therefore, the writ petition was filed.