KAMAL KUMAR PATNAIK Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioners have approached this court with a prayer for quashing the orders dated 20.02014 and 19.02014, whereby the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioners regarding full salary after exoneration.

(3.) The factual matrix in narrow compass is that petitioner No. 1 is working as Assistant in the office of C.O. Dalbhumgarh and petitioner No. 2 is working as Head Clerk in Chakulia Block. It has further been stated that a criminal case was registered against Potka P.S. Case No. 60 of 2009 dated 208.2009, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2144 of 2009, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 408, 409, 120B, 34 IPC.The Police, after investigation, vide final form did not find any materials against the petitioners and the Court, after hearing the informant on 04.04.2014, accepted the final form and exonerated the petitioners. The petitioners were put under suspension during pendency of the criminal case vide letter dated 08.08.2009. It was specifically mentioned that vide order dated 20.02.2014 and 19.02.2014, after perusing the police report, the order of suspension was withdrawn and further order was passed regarding salary and other allowances shall be taken only after conclusion of the Departmental Proceeding. It is the specific case of the petitioners that on 005.2016, a decision was taken that there is no material for initiation of Departmental Proceeding against the petitioners and accordingly, it was decided that no Departmental Proceeding is required to be initiated and period of suspension be treated on duty and accordingly, petitioners are entitled for full payment of the period of suspension. Thereafter, the petitioners made representation to the authorities concerned for payment of entire dues of the petitioners for the period 08.09.2009 to 18.02.2014, when they were put under suspension since subsistence allowances was not paid to the petitioner. As the representation of the petitioners were rejected vide memo No. 1198 and 1199 dated 19.12.2016, on the ground that since the attendance register was not signed by the petitioner during the period of suspension., they are not entitled for any payment.