SHANKAR PASWAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and with their consent this case is disposed of at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated-13.10.1998, (Annexure-3), whereby while confirming the punishment, which was earlier imposed against the petitioner, an observation has been made that the period of the petitioner's suspension shall not be counted for the purposes of retiral benefits, though the same shall not be considered as a break in service.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner explains that earlier, against the impugned order of punishment, the petitioner had moved this Court by filing a writ application vide C.W.J.C. No. 2992 of 1997 (R). While disposing of the writ application vide order dated 20.04.1998, this Court had earlier observed that the impugned third clause needs clarification and that the punishment should, in no way, be construed as a break of service of the petitioner. Relying also on the recommendation made in his favour by the Deputy Commissioner, learned counsel refers in this context to Annexure-6, which is a letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner, in which a recommendation has been made for treating the order of punishment "in the manner as to enable the counting of the period of suspension for the purposes of computing the retiral benefits".