Gurjant Singh, son of late Surjit Singh, resident of Kankani, P.O. & P.S. Kankani v. 1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, P.O
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 437 of 2019 ---------- Gurjant Singh, son of late Surjit Singh, resident of Kankani, P.O. & P.S. Kankani, Dist. Dhanbad (permanent resident of village Marjindpura, Tehsil Patti, Dist. Amritsar, State Punjab). ………. Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, P.O. & P.S. North Block, New Delhi. 2. Director General of Central Industrial Security Force, CGO Complex, P.O. & P.S. CGO Complex, New Delhi. 3. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force (ES), Ministry of Home Affairs, 19 Telegraph Colony, Kidwaipuri, P.O. & P.S. Patliputra, Patna. 4. Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., CISF New Colony, Koyla Nagar, P.O. Koyla, P.S. Seraidhela, Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 5. Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit, C.C.W.O., Saraidhela, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Seraidhela, Dhanbad. ………. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK ---------- For the Petitioner ----------- : For the Respondents :
Legal Reasoning
to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 435 of 2009. 3. Earlier the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S). No. 435 of 2009 challenging the order dated 21.05.2007 issued under the signature of respondent no.5 and the order of the appellate authority issued by respondent no.2 vide order dated 14.12.2007 affirming the order of the disciplinary authority and for quashing of the order dated 03.03.2008 issued 1 under the signature of respondent no.3 affirming the order of the appellate authority, and for direction to the respondents to forthwith pay the entire arrears of difference of salary along with interest. This Court after hearing the parties, vide order dated 15.06.2016 disposed of the said writ petition remitting the matter back to the respondent No. 5 to reconsider the same in accordance with law and to pass fresh order, keeping in view the relevant Fundamental Rules. Thereafter, the respondents initiated a fresh proceeding and after giving ample opportunity to the petitioner to present his case, passed the impugned order by which it has been observed that the period of suspension from 21.02.1995 to 08.01.1996 shall be treated as the period under suspension for all the purposes and he will not be paid any more pay and allowance except the subsistence allowance already paid to him during the period of suspension. Being aggrieved by the said order of the respondents, the petitioner has been compelled to knock the door of this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled for salary for the period of suspension as earlier he has moved this Court and the order of suspension was quashed and set aside. Learned counsel submits that since suspension order itself was quashed and set aside, petitioner is entitled for full salary of the suspension period. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents-UoI very fairly submits that it is not in quarrel that order of suspension was quashed and set aside by this Court earlier in W.P.(S). No. 435 of 2009 but simultaneously matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority to consider the same and pass fresh order taking into account relevant Fundamental Rule i.e. F.R.-54. Learned counsel submits that after giving ample opportunity to the petitioner to present his case, a fresh proceeding was initiated and concluded. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority taking into consideration the F.R. 54 passed the order dated 19.09.2016 holding therein that his suspension period from 21.02.1995 to 08.01.1996 has been treated as the period under suspension for all the purposes and will not be paid any more 2 pay & allowance except the subsistence allowance already paid to him during the period of suspension. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has been given subsistence allowance and it has been clearly held that he will not be eligible for any other payment. Justifying the impugned order, learned counsel submits that there is no illegality or any infirmity in the
Arguments
Mr. Anand Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Sharan, Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, CGC 13/ 16.10.2024 Heard the parties. ---------- 2. Petitioner has thrown challenge to the order dated 19.09.2016 by which the period of suspension from 21.02.1995 to 08.01.1996 has been treated as the period under suspension for all the purposes which is contrary
Decision
order passed by the disciplinary authority and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed outrightly. 6. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties across the bar, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition. 7. For better appreciation it would be proper to peruse the provisions of F.R. 54 which reads as under: “F.R. 54(1) When a Government servant who has been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired is reinstated as a result of appeal or review or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension or not, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order- (a) Regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of his absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be; and (b) Whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. (2) Where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of opinion that the Government servant who had been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired has been fully exonerated, the Government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (6), be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be: Provided that where such authority is of opinion that the termination of the proceedings instituted against the Government servant had been delayed due to reasons directly, attributable to the Government servant it may, after giving him an opportunity to make his representation within sixty days from the date on which the communication in this regard is served on him and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him, direct, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the Government 3 servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (7), be paid for the period of such delay, only such amount (not being the whole) of such pay and allowances as it may determine. (3) In a case falling under sub-rule (2), the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. (4) In cases other than those covered by subrule (2) (including cases where the order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service is set aside by the appellate or reviewing authority solely on the ground of non-compliance with the requirements of Clause (1) or Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution and no further inquiry is proposed to be held) the Government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub- rules (5) and (7), be paid such amount (not being the whole) of the pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, as the competent authority may determine, after giving, notice to the Government servant of the quantum proposed and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him in that connection within such period (while in no case shall exceed sixty days from the date on which the notice has been served) as may be specified in the notice. (5) In a case falling under sub-rule (4), the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, shall not be treated as a period spent on duty, unless the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be treated so for any specified purpose: Provided that, if the Government servant so desires, such authority may direct that the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, shall be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible to the Government servant. Note- The order of the competent authority under the preceding proviso shall be absolute and no higher sanction shall be necessary for the grant of- (a) Extraordinary leave in excess of three months in the case of temporary Government servant; and (b) Leave of any kind in excess of five years in the case of permanent or quasi-permanent Government servant. (6) The payment of allowances under sub-rule (2) or sub- rule (4) shall be subject to all other conditions under which such allowances are admissible.” 4 8. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner was remitted back to the disciplinary authority i.e. respondent No. 4 to consider the same in accordance with law and pass a reasoned order taking into account the provisions of F.R. 54. Thereafter, the respondents initiated fresh proceeding and after giving ample opportunity to the petitioner, found him guilty of the charges and accordingly the order dated 19.09.2016 was passed which requires no interference. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) kunal/- 5