RAM BILASH SAHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition was filed on 10.01.2013, during the period when the petitioner was under suspension i.e. from 04.11.2010 till his suspension was revoked on 22.11.2013. The petitioner came with a grievance that the respondents ought to have considered enhancement of the subsistence allowance on completion of 12 months of suspension in terms of statutory provisions contained in Rule 96(1)(a)(i) of the Jharkhand Service Code. Rule 96 of the Jharkhand Service Code is quoted hereunder:-

(2.) The petitioner's contention is that after being placed under suspension, he was charge sheeted on account of having been implicated in a criminal case being R.C. No. 20(A)/2009(R) relating to illegal procurement and utilization of bitumen. He was taken into custody on 14.02.2012. On 08.10.2012, he was released from custody. It has submitted, on his part, that during the period after his suspension before he was taken in custody on 14.02.2012, he attended 16 dates out of 17 dates fixed by the inquiry officer diligently. It is submitted that the record of the proceeding of the departmental enquiry which also contains communication issued by the Inquiry Officer, some of which are annexed in the writ petition such as letter dated 11.08.2011, 22.06.2012, Annexure-4 reveals that there was almost lack of co-operation from the Prosecuting officer and the documents sought for by the delinquent were not even supplied for a considerable length of time despite direction issued by the Enquiry officer. The Enquiry officer in fact remitted the file for further continuation of the enquiry to the department vide letter dated 22.06.2012. It is, therefore, submitted that the respondents ought to have considered enhancement of subsistence allowance in terms of Rule 96(1)(a)(i) of the Jharkhand Service Code, which has not been done.

(3.) It is contended that, the petitioner's suspension, during the pendency of the writ petition, has been revoked on 22.11.2013, however, that is not a ground to refuse enhancement of subsistence allowance during the period he was under suspension in terms of statutory rule.