Anand Prakash … v. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. / Principal Secretary, Planning-cum-Finance The State
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 5250 of 2024 Anand Prakash …. Petitioner Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. / Principal Secretary, Planning-cum-Finance The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary / Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Ranchi. Under Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Ranchi. The Secretary Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. The Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, Ranchi. The State of Bihar through the Secretary / Principal Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Patna. The Secretary Government of Bihar, Patna. Deputy Secretary to Government, Home Department (Police Branch), State of Bihar, Patna. The Accountant General (A&E), Bihar, Patna. …. Respondents / Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK ------ For the Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
------ : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. Siddharth Ranjan, Advocate For the Resp-State : Ms. Sunita Kumari, AC to Sr. SC-I For the Resp-State of Bihar : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate For the Resp-A.G. : Ms. Richa Sanchita, Advocate ----- 2/ 30.09.2024 The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the decision contained in Memo No. 8823 dated 24.07.2023 by which the Deputy Secretary, Home Department (Police Branch), Govt. of Jharkhand, Bihar, has decided that the petitioner shall not be entitled to anything than what he has been paid as subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension from 24.01.2006 to 08.4.2011. Further prayer has been made to extend the benefit of 1st MACP with effect from 9.4.2009. The petitioner has also prayed for payment of salary from 8.4.2011 to 11.9.2011. Prayer has also been made to give the benefit of promotion order contained in Notification No. 1269 dated 14.02.2017, by which the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Sr. Deputy Superintendent of Police. 2. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the district of Gaya, he was put under suspension in contemplation 1 of a departmental proceeding. Learned counsel further submits that the suspension of the petitioner was revoked on 8.4.2011 and no punishment was inflicted upon him and he was fully exonerated by the disciplinary authority. Learned counsel further submits that after exoneration from the charges, the petitioner’s service was allocated to the Jharkhand cadre. Assailing the impugned order by which the petitioner was denied full salary during the period of suspension, leaned counsel submits that in view of Rule 97 of the Bihar / Jharkhand Service Code, he was very much entitled for full salary, as no punishment was imposed upon him and the disciplinary authority has fully exonerated him from the charges. 3. Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Bihar submits that since the period of suspension has been regularized, the petitioner was not entitled for any salary for the said period. 4. Ms. Sunita Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that even if the petitioner is entitled for full salary during the suspension period, it is the State of Bihar which has to pay and the State of Jharkhand has no role to play in paying the amount. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, it appears that the petitioner was suspended in contemplation of a departmental proceeding on 24.01.2006 and his suspension was revoked on 8.4.2011, as the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved and the petitioner was fully exonerated from the charges. In this context, Rule 97 of the Bihar / Jharkhand Service Code is more profitable to mention herein:- (1) When a government servant who has been dismissed, “97. removed, or suspended, reinstated, the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall consider and make specific order— (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the government servant for the period of his absence from duty, and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. (2) Where the authority mentioned in sub-rule (1), is of opinion that the Government Servant has been fully exonerated, or in the case of suspension, that it was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall be given full pay and allowance to which he would have been entitled has he not been dismissed, removed or suspended, as the case may be.” 2 6. From plain reading of the aforesaid Rules, it is evident that sub- rule (1) of Rule 97 stipulates that where a government servant is suspended, the authority competent to order the reinstatement has to consider and make a specific order regarding the pay and allowances for the period of absence from duty and whether or not the period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. Sub-rule (2) indicates that where the authority concludes that the government servant has been fully exonerated or suspension was “wholly unjustified”, the government servant shall be given full pay and allowances. 7. In the facts of this case, since the petitioner was exonerated from the charges, rightly the suspension period has been treated as spent on duty and simultaneously, he was also entitled for full salary for the period he remained under suspension. As such, the impugned decision contained in Memo No. 8823 dated 24.07.2023 so far it relates to denying the full salary during the suspension period, is hereby quashed. The respondent-State of Bihar is directed to extend the full salary minus what has been already paid as subsistence allowance from 24.01.2006 to 08.04.2011. 8. So far as other claims of the petitioner are concerned, this Court directs the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent concerned raising his entire claims, along with a copy of this order and the documents on which he is relying upon. On receipt of the same, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass a speaking order assigning valid and concrete reason for consideration / non-consideration of the case of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. 9. Needless to say that if the petitioner is found entitled for the
Decision
benefits as prayed for in the writ petition, the same be extended to him within a further period of four weeks in accordance with law. If the case of petitioner is turned down for one or other reasons, the same be communicated to him, within the said period. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. R.Kr. (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) 3