UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA Vs. SHRI HARI PRASAD DADHICH SON OF LATE SHRI BHOORMAL DADHICH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of the writ petition are that the respondent was holding the post of Assistant Treasurer with the petitioners. He was suspended on 25/02/1994. After conducting departmental proceedings, he was served with penalty of compulsory retirement vide order dated 17/04/1995. The appellate authority finding that the disciplinary authority inflicted the punishment of compulsory retirement without any disagreement notice, set aside the order of compulsory retirement with direction for de-novo proceedings vide order dated 20/08/1996. After conducting enquiry afresh, the respondent was served with penalty of removal from service vide order dated 12/05/1997. The appeal was also rejected vide order dated 25/05/1998.

(3.) On a petition preferred by the respondents, vide order dated 24/07/2000, the punishment of removal from service was altered by reducing pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect. In consequence thereof, the respondent was reinstated vide order dated 12/08/2000. A notice was served upon him by the petitioners to show cause as to why the period of deemed suspension and removal to reinstatement be not treated as not on duty and also restrict his pay and allowances for the said period. After considering the representation, the petitioners passed an order on 02/03/2001 under Rule 54(5) of the Fundamental Rules (FR) holding the period to be absence from duty for all purposes. However, in appeal, the Office of the Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan vide order dated 27/01/2003 observed that the respondent has remained under suspension from 25/02/1994 to 17/04/1995 and deemed suspension from 18/04/1995 to 12/05/1997. That apart, the respondent had also remained on duty during the period from 13/05/1997 to 11/08/2000 i.e. between the date of removal to the date of reinstatement. Under the circumstances, considering the provisions of the Rules, the period of suspension from 25/02/1994 to 12/05/1997 was considered as period spent on duty for all purposes and full pay and allowances. While for the period from 13/05/1997 to 11/08/2000, as the respondent had not been fully exonerated in the departmental proceedings, as per FR 54(4), he was held to be not entitled for the whole of the amount for the said period and it was directed that the respondent shall be paid 60% of the pay and allowances for the period from removal to reinstatement.