High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Petitioner, who is a retired medical officer from the State Medical Services, is aggrieved by the order dated 25th August, 2008 passed by the State Government rejecting representation/ claim of the petitioner for salary for the period running from August, 1996 till 17th January, 2003 when he attained the age of superannuation.

3. History of the case involved three rounds of litigation to the

Court. Firstly his transfer order was stayed then his suspension order was stayed and ultimately when he was not paid salary, earlier writ petition was filed in which a direction was issued to take decision as a consequences to which an order impugned has come to be passed.

4. It appears that petitioner was placed under suspension on 6th June, 1992 setting into motion a departmental inquiry against him and in the meanwhile he was also transferred from the post of medical officer of State Insurance Hospital, Mohan Nagar, district Ghaziabad to State Insurance Dispensary Sardar Nagar, Gorakhpur vide order dated 8th July, 1992. This order was put to challenge by means of writ petition in which interim stay order was passed while inviting counter affidavit from the state respondents on 17th September, 1992. A true copy of the order is reproduced hereunder: “Standing counsel is granted four weeks time to file a counter affidavit. List this petition for admission in the month of November, 1992, Meanwhile the transfer order of the petitioner dated 5.7.1992 is stayed.”

5. In the meanwhile, petitioner also came to be suspended vide order dated 6th June, 1992. He challenged the same vide writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.- 21321 of 1992 in which stay order was granted by this Court only on 26th July, 2000 disposing of the writ petition finally. The order dated 26th July, 2000 is reproduced hereunder: “Petitioner has challenged suspension order dated 6.6.1992. This court had stayed impugned order vide order dated 18.6.1992. Now more than eight years have expired, there is no useful purpose in continuing the petition. Hence we dispose of this petition with the direction that suspension order shall remain stayed but the inquiry any go on and shall be completed, if not already completed expeditiously.”

6. In the meanwhile since the petitioner was enjoying the stay order and concerned respondent had already undertaken disciplinary proceedings against him, petitioner was made to continue at 2 of 10 Ghaziabad but suddenly during the pendency of the petition against the earlier transfer order, petitioner was again transferred but this time from Ghaziabad to Roorkee vide order dated 20th July, 1996, this order was communicated to the petitioner on 23rd July, 1996.

7. Petitioner immediately represented the matter before the Director, State Employees’ Insurance and Labour Medical Services, Kanpur on 24th July, 1996 against the transfer order for it being in the teeth of the interim order passed by this Court which was still continuing and further made a reminder representation on 9th September, 1996 that the said interim order was further extended but nothing happened in the matter. Petitioner instead of joining at Roorkee continued at Ghaziabad and the disciplinary proceedings also continued against him. Ultimately petitioner filed another writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.- 38723 of 1997. This Court vide order dated 22nd November, 1997 disposed of the writ petition with following directions: “The petitioner was earlier suspended in the year 1992. He preferred a writ petition, which is still pending in which order of suspension was stayed. Although the charge sheet has been filed, but the enquiry has not progressed. The another grievance of the petitioner is that he is being paid the same salary, which was being paid in the year 1992 without the increments and the revised pay scale etc. since the question involved in this petition is a trivial one, hence we dispose of this petition, after hearing Mr. Rajesh D.Khare, learned counsel, by issuing a direction to the enquiry officer to conclude the enquiry within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order and forward the report to the Appointing Authority forthwith for passing final 3 of 10 orders. The appointing authority, after completing all the necessary formalities in accordance with the rules and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramzan Khan if at all applicable will pass final order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the report. The petitioner will fully co-operate with the enquiry and will not seek any adjournment. If the petitioner would seek any adjournment, that period will be excluded from the period indicated her in above.”

8. Resultantly, the competent disciplinary authority proceeded to dispose of the matter of disciplinary proceedings expeditiously and finally passed an order on 24th December, 2002 imposing a penalty in the nature of withholding four increments cumulately as well as awarding adverse entry for certain illegal appointments made between the year 1991 and 1992. The operative portion of the order impugned dated 24th December, 2002 is reproduced hereunder: “4. उप቟኎(cid:4)(cid:5)्ሹ वቓኌ(cid:10)त ቝኌ(cid:13)(cid:14)तित में डॉ० बी०के०अ्ቇवाल , ति(cid:29)किकत्साति!कारी (कि#ल०) क०रा०बी० औष!ाल቟኎, मोह##गर, गाजि*቟኎ाबाद के किवरु्ቍ ्ቚ(cid:29)लिलत दो अऩ(cid:4)शासकि#क का቟኎(cid:5)वाकिह቟኎ों में *ां(cid:29) अति!कारिर቟኎ों ्ቛारा उपलब्! करा቟኎ी ग቟኎ी *ाँ(cid:29) आख्቟኎ाओं, उ# पर डा० अ्ቇवाल ्ቛारा ्ቚ(cid:13)त(cid:4)त अभ्቟኎ावेद#ों, लोक सेवा आ቟኎ोग, उ०्ቚ० के परामश(cid:5) त(cid:14)ा प्ቔावली में उपलब्! स(cid:4)संगत अभि>लेखों के परी्ቌ(cid:10)ोंपरान्त शास# ्ቛारा सम्቟኎क किव(cid:29)ारोपरान्त डा० बी०के०अ्ቇवाल को कि#቟኎मा#(cid:4)सार दቝኌCडत करते ह(cid:4)ए उन्हें सेवा में बहाल किक቟኎ा *ाता है त(cid:14)ा उ#के किवरू्ቍ ्ቚ(cid:29)लिलत उ्ሹ दो#ों अ#(cid:4)शासकि#क का቟኎(cid:5)वाकिह቟኎ाँ समा्቎ की *ाती हैंः- (क) डा० बी०के०अ्ቇवाल, ति(cid:29)किकत्साति!कारी की (cid:29)ार वेत# वृति्ቍ቟኎ाँ (cid:13)(cid:14)ा቟኎ी रूप से (सं(cid:29)቟኎ी ्ቚ>ाव से) रोकी *ाती हैं। (ख) डा० अ्ቇवाल को कि#म्#वत परिरकि#ቝኌन्दत किक቟኎ा *ाता हैः- "डा० अ्ቇवाल ्ቛारा वष(cid:5) 1990 से 1992 की अवति! में तृती቟኎/(cid:29)त(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:5) ्ቦे(cid:10)ी के पदों पर कतितप቟኎ अकि#቟኎किमत कि#቟኎(cid:4)कि्ሹ቟኎ाँ कर#े, अप#े ्ቌे्ቔाति!कार से बाहर *ाकर अति!कारिर቟኎ों/कम(cid:5)(cid:29)ारिर቟኎ों के (cid:13)(cid:14)ा#ान्तर(cid:10) कर#े, किव्ቈी቟኎ वष(cid:5) 1990-91 में ्ቚ>ारी ति(cid:29)किकत्साति!कारी के रूप में का቟኎(cid:5) करते ह(cid:4)ए किब#ा ब*ट आवंट# ्ቚा्቎ किकए ही रू०- 32,513.57 पै० त(cid:14)ा रू०-2481.16 पै० की !#राभिश की ्ቅमशः ्ቚतितपूቔኌत दावा एवं औषति!቟኎ाँ ्ቅ቟኎ किकए *ा#े संबं!ी अकि#቟኎किमतताओं में दोषी पाए *ा#े के कार(cid:10) उ#की एतद््ቛारा परिरकि#न्दा की *ाती है।" 4 of 10

9. Now, assailing the order impugned dated 25th August, 2008, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner’s suspension order was stayed by this Court on 26th July, 2000 and under the order impugned petitioner’s suspension stood revoked only with two punishment orders: (a) (i). Withholding four increments with cumulative effect; and (ii) awarding adverse entry for the year 1990 and 1992 and hence there was no occasion to impose further punishment of withholding salary for the period petitioner had been made to continue under suspension. Thus, according to learned counsel for the petitioner since four annual increments got withheld cumulatively and further an adverse entry got awarded, the respondent disciplinary authority shall be taken to have automatically condoned the entire period from 1996 to 2003 for which he was being blamed to have not joined under the transfer order issued on 20/23.7.1996. It is worth noticing that both the disciplinary proceedings came to be concluded under the order dated 24th December, 2002.

10. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner having been made to retire from Ghaziabad, respondents cannot blame him for continuing at Ghaziabad and so also cannot deny him salary. It is further argued that the order of punishment is final in nature and respondents could have acted only in terms of their own order of punishment and could not have 5 of 10 travelled beyond the same to withhold the salary for the period running from 1996 till he attained the age of superannuation in the year 2003. He further submits that petitioner even if was relieved pursuant to the transfer order dated 20/23.7.1996 it was an order in the teeth of the interim order passed by this Court as the earlier transfer order was stayed and petitioner was made to continue at Ghaziabad. It is further submitted that no proceedings have been further drawn in the matter of any absence from duty by the petitioner for the period 1996-2003 and hence it is pleaded that interim order deserves to be quashed.

11. Countering the above submission learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon the averments made in the counter affidavit vide paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 that are reproduced hereunder: “7. That in reply to the contents of paragraph 16 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the petitioner was posted in E.S.L. Hospital Mohan Nagar Ghaziabad for the last several years and as such on administrative exigencies, he was transferred from that place to E.S.L. Hospital Roorkee vide order dated 20.7.1996 passed by the Directorate which is perfectly just and legal.

8. That in reply to the contents of paragraph 17 of the writ petition, it is most respectfully submitted that during the tenure of the petitioner at E.S.L. Hospital, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, he has made certain illegal appointments on the post of Class-IV employees in between May, 1991 to April, 1992 and as such he was placed under suspension during the contemplation of departmental enquiry in which he was found to be guilty person and as such vide order dated 24.12.2002 the petitioner was reinstated in service by awarding him punishment of withholding his two annual increments as well as censure entry in his service book. The petitioner was given full opportunity to defend his case before awarding impugned punishment to the petitioner. 6 of 10

9. That the contents of paragraphs 18 to 21 of the writ petition need no comments.”

12. It is argued by learned Standing Counsel that petitioner did not report for duty at Roorkee where he was transferred from Ghaziabad in the year 1996, and have the period shall be taken to be absence from duty and, therefore, petitioner was rightly held not entitled to arrears of salary for the said period.

13. Upon a pointed query being made learned Standing Counsel could not state about any proceedings ever drawn against the petitioner for his alleged absence from duty from 19th August, 1996 till January, 2003.

14. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, the question that arises for consideration of the Court is, whether the respondents are justified in withholding salary of the petitioner for the period 1996 to 2003. Having perused the order of punishment dated 24th December 2002, operative portion of which has been reproduced herein above, I find that the while disciplinary proceedings were drawn against the petitioner for having committed certain illegal appointments in the financial year 1990 to 1992 and for being involved in illegal purchase of medicines, no disciplinary proceeding was ever drawn either before his retirement or even after retirement for alleged non 7 of 10 compliance of the transfer order issued on 20/23.7.1996 and resultant alleged misconduct.

15. It is apparent from the pleadings raised by the respective parties in this case that petitioner was finally made to retire from Ghaziabad district in the year 2003. The respondents while passed the final order in disciplinary proceedings on 24th December, 2002, could have examined the matter also qua absence from duty, if any, between 1996 and 2003 by issuing him supplementary chargesheet but no such action was taken and even suspension order passed against the petitioner came to be stayed on 26th July, 2020. Petitioner was directed to continue to work at Ghaziabad from where he got superannuated. Thus, there being no disciplinary proceeding ever drawn against the petitioner in respect of his alleged non-compliance of transfer order issued in the year 1996 and not joining at Roorkee and his continuance at Ghaziabad, respondents could not have withheld the salary of the petitioner, more especially when by their own conduct in passing the punishment order on 24th December, 2002, no orders were passed regarding his alleged absence from duty and withholding salary for the period.

16. This petition was filed in the year 2009 and respondents had sufficient opportunity to initiate disciplinary proceedings by seeking permission from Hon’ble Governor as is contemplated under 8 of 10 Regulation 351A of Civil Service Regulations but even this was not done. The averments which have been made in the counter affidavit only refer to the departmental inquiries in which it is alleged that petitioner was found to be guilty under the order dated 24th December, 2002.

17. Interestingly, at the cost of reiteration and repetition, I may observe that order of punishment dated 24th December, 2002 has no reflection upon the conduct of the petitioner qua his alleged absence for the period running from 1996 to 2003 at Roorkee Station and, therefore, the punishment order cannot be read into here to reject the claim of petitioner and reject the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary from the year 1996 to 2003.

18. In view of the above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 25th August, 2003 passed by the respondent No.- 1 is hereby quashed.

19. The respondent – State authorities are directed to immediately release the entire arrears of salary of the petitioner for the period running from August, 1996 to 17th January, 2003 after calculating the amount as per the pay-scale admissible to the petitioner while in service during the said period.

20. The calculation shall be made and payment of arrears of salary so calculated shall be made to the petitioner within a 9 of 10 maximum period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Atmesh ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 10 of 10

Court. Firstly his transfer order was stayed then his suspension order was stayed and ultimately when he was not paid salary, earlier writ petition was filed in which a direction was issued to take decision as a consequences to which an order impugned has come to be passed.

4. It appears that petitioner was placed under suspension on 6th June, 1992 setting into motion a departmental inquiry against him and in the meanwhile he was also transferred from the post of medical officer of State Insurance Hospital, Mohan Nagar, district Ghaziabad to State Insurance Dispensary Sardar Nagar, Gorakhpur vide order dated 8th July, 1992. This order was put to challenge by means of writ petition in which interim stay order was passed while inviting counter affidavit from the state respondents on 17th September, 1992. A true copy of the order is reproduced hereunder: “Standing counsel is granted four weeks time to file a counter affidavit. List this petition for admission in the month of November, 1992, Meanwhile the transfer order of the petitioner dated 5.7.1992 is stayed.”

5. In the meanwhile, petitioner also came to be suspended vide order dated 6th June, 1992. He challenged the same vide writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.- 21321 of 1992 in which stay order was granted by this Court only on 26th July, 2000 disposing of the writ petition finally. The order dated 26th July, 2000 is reproduced hereunder: “Petitioner has challenged suspension order dated 6.6.1992. This court had stayed impugned order vide order dated 18.6.1992. Now more than eight years have expired, there is no useful purpose in continuing the petition. Hence we dispose of this petition with the direction that suspension order shall remain stayed but the inquiry any go on and shall be completed, if not already completed expeditiously.”

6. In the meanwhile since the petitioner was enjoying the stay order and concerned respondent had already undertaken disciplinary proceedings against him, petitioner was made to continue at 2 of 10 Ghaziabad but suddenly during the pendency of the petition against the earlier transfer order, petitioner was again transferred but this time from Ghaziabad to Roorkee vide order dated 20th July, 1996, this order was communicated to the petitioner on 23rd July, 1996.

7. Petitioner immediately represented the matter before the Director, State Employees’ Insurance and Labour Medical Services, Kanpur on 24th July, 1996 against the transfer order for it being in the teeth of the interim order passed by this Court which was still continuing and further made a reminder representation on 9th September, 1996 that the said interim order was further extended but nothing happened in the matter. Petitioner instead of joining at Roorkee continued at Ghaziabad and the disciplinary proceedings also continued against him. Ultimately petitioner filed another writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.- 38723 of 1997. This Court vide order dated 22nd November, 1997 disposed of the writ petition with following directions: “The petitioner was earlier suspended in the year 1992. He preferred a writ petition, which is still pending in which order of suspension was stayed. Although the charge sheet has been filed, but the enquiry has not progressed. The another grievance of the petitioner is that he is being paid the same salary, which was being paid in the year 1992 without the increments and the revised pay scale etc. since the question involved in this petition is a trivial one, hence we dispose of this petition, after hearing Mr. Rajesh D.Khare, learned counsel, by issuing a direction to the enquiry officer to conclude the enquiry within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order and forward the report to the Appointing Authority forthwith for passing final 3 of 10 orders. The appointing authority, after completing all the necessary formalities in accordance with the rules and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramzan Khan if at all applicable will pass final order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the report. The petitioner will fully co-operate with the enquiry and will not seek any adjournment. If the petitioner would seek any adjournment, that period will be excluded from the period indicated her in above.”

8. Resultantly, the competent disciplinary authority proceeded to dispose of the matter of disciplinary proceedings expeditiously and finally passed an order on 24th December, 2002 imposing a penalty in the nature of withholding four increments cumulately as well as awarding adverse entry for certain illegal appointments made between the year 1991 and 1992. The operative portion of the order impugned dated 24th December, 2002 is reproduced hereunder: “4. उप቟኎(cid:4)(cid:5)्ሹ वቓኌ(cid:10)त ቝኌ(cid:13)(cid:14)तित में डॉ० बी०के०अ्ቇवाल , ति(cid:29)किकत्साति!कारी (कि#ल०) क०रा०बी० औष!ाल቟኎, मोह##गर, गाजि*቟኎ाबाद के किवरु्ቍ ्ቚ(cid:29)लिलत दो अऩ(cid:4)शासकि#क का቟኎(cid:5)वाकिह቟኎ों में *ां(cid:29) अति!कारिर቟኎ों ्ቛारा उपलब्! करा቟኎ी ग቟኎ी *ाँ(cid:29) आख्቟኎ाओं, उ# पर डा० अ्ቇवाल ्ቛारा ्ቚ(cid:13)त(cid:4)त अभ्቟኎ावेद#ों, लोक सेवा आ቟኎ोग, उ०्ቚ० के परामश(cid:5) त(cid:14)ा प्ቔावली में उपलब्! स(cid:4)संगत अभि>लेखों के परी्ቌ(cid:10)ोंपरान्त शास# ्ቛारा सम्቟኎क किव(cid:29)ारोपरान्त डा० बी०के०अ्ቇवाल को कि#቟኎मा#(cid:4)सार दቝኌCडत करते ह(cid:4)ए उन्हें सेवा में बहाल किक቟኎ा *ाता है त(cid:14)ा उ#के किवरू्ቍ ्ቚ(cid:29)लिलत उ्ሹ दो#ों अ#(cid:4)शासकि#क का቟኎(cid:5)वाकिह቟኎ाँ समा्቎ की *ाती हैंः- (क) डा० बी०के०अ्ቇवाल, ति(cid:29)किकत्साति!कारी की (cid:29)ार वेत# वृति्ቍ቟኎ाँ (cid:13)(cid:14)ा቟኎ी रूप से (सं(cid:29)቟኎ी ्ቚ>ाव से) रोकी *ाती हैं। (ख) डा० अ्ቇवाल को कि#म्#वत परिरकि#ቝኌन्दत किक቟኎ा *ाता हैः- "डा० अ्ቇवाल ्ቛारा वष(cid:5) 1990 से 1992 की अवति! में तृती቟኎/(cid:29)त(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:5) ्ቦे(cid:10)ी के पदों पर कतितप቟኎ अकि#቟኎किमत कि#቟኎(cid:4)कि्ሹ቟኎ाँ कर#े, अप#े ्ቌे्ቔाति!कार से बाहर *ाकर अति!कारिर቟኎ों/कम(cid:5)(cid:29)ारिर቟኎ों के (cid:13)(cid:14)ा#ान्तर(cid:10) कर#े, किव्ቈी቟኎ वष(cid:5) 1990-91 में ्ቚ>ारी ति(cid:29)किकत्साति!कारी के रूप में का቟኎(cid:5) करते ह(cid:4)ए किब#ा ब*ट आवंट# ्ቚा्቎ किकए ही रू०- 32,513.57 पै० त(cid:14)ा रू०-2481.16 पै० की !#राभिश की ्ቅमशः ्ቚतितपूቔኌत दावा एवं औषति!቟኎ाँ ्ቅ቟኎ किकए *ा#े संबं!ी अकि#቟኎किमतताओं में दोषी पाए *ा#े के कार(cid:10) उ#की एतद््ቛारा परिरकि#न्दा की *ाती है।" 4 of 10

9. Now, assailing the order impugned dated 25th August, 2008, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner’s suspension order was stayed by this Court on 26th July, 2000 and under the order impugned petitioner’s suspension stood revoked only with two punishment orders: (a) (i). Withholding four increments with cumulative effect; and (ii) awarding adverse entry for the year 1990 and 1992 and hence there was no occasion to impose further punishment of withholding salary for the period petitioner had been made to continue under suspension. Thus, according to learned counsel for the petitioner since four annual increments got withheld cumulatively and further an adverse entry got awarded, the respondent disciplinary authority shall be taken to have automatically condoned the entire period from 1996 to 2003 for which he was being blamed to have not joined under the transfer order issued on 20/23.7.1996. It is worth noticing that both the disciplinary proceedings came to be concluded under the order dated 24th December, 2002.

10. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner having been made to retire from Ghaziabad, respondents cannot blame him for continuing at Ghaziabad and so also cannot deny him salary. It is further argued that the order of punishment is final in nature and respondents could have acted only in terms of their own order of punishment and could not have 5 of 10 travelled beyond the same to withhold the salary for the period running from 1996 till he attained the age of superannuation in the year 2003. He further submits that petitioner even if was relieved pursuant to the transfer order dated 20/23.7.1996 it was an order in the teeth of the interim order passed by this Court as the earlier transfer order was stayed and petitioner was made to continue at Ghaziabad. It is further submitted that no proceedings have been further drawn in the matter of any absence from duty by the petitioner for the period 1996-2003 and hence it is pleaded that interim order deserves to be quashed.

11. Countering the above submission learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon the averments made in the counter affidavit vide paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 that are reproduced hereunder: “7. That in reply to the contents of paragraph 16 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the petitioner was posted in E.S.L. Hospital Mohan Nagar Ghaziabad for the last several years and as such on administrative exigencies, he was transferred from that place to E.S.L. Hospital Roorkee vide order dated 20.7.1996 passed by the Directorate which is perfectly just and legal.

8. That in reply to the contents of paragraph 17 of the writ petition, it is most respectfully submitted that during the tenure of the petitioner at E.S.L. Hospital, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, he has made certain illegal appointments on the post of Class-IV employees in between May, 1991 to April, 1992 and as such he was placed under suspension during the contemplation of departmental enquiry in which he was found to be guilty person and as such vide order dated 24.12.2002 the petitioner was reinstated in service by awarding him punishment of withholding his two annual increments as well as censure entry in his service book. The petitioner was given full opportunity to defend his case before awarding impugned punishment to the petitioner. 6 of 10

9. That the contents of paragraphs 18 to 21 of the writ petition need no comments.”

12. It is argued by learned Standing Counsel that petitioner did not report for duty at Roorkee where he was transferred from Ghaziabad in the year 1996, and have the period shall be taken to be absence from duty and, therefore, petitioner was rightly held not entitled to arrears of salary for the said period.

13. Upon a pointed query being made learned Standing Counsel could not state about any proceedings ever drawn against the petitioner for his alleged absence from duty from 19th August, 1996 till January, 2003.

14. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, the question that arises for consideration of the Court is, whether the respondents are justified in withholding salary of the petitioner for the period 1996 to 2003. Having perused the order of punishment dated 24th December 2002, operative portion of which has been reproduced herein above, I find that the while disciplinary proceedings were drawn against the petitioner for having committed certain illegal appointments in the financial year 1990 to 1992 and for being involved in illegal purchase of medicines, no disciplinary proceeding was ever drawn either before his retirement or even after retirement for alleged non 7 of 10 compliance of the transfer order issued on 20/23.7.1996 and resultant alleged misconduct.

15. It is apparent from the pleadings raised by the respective parties in this case that petitioner was finally made to retire from Ghaziabad district in the year 2003. The respondents while passed the final order in disciplinary proceedings on 24th December, 2002, could have examined the matter also qua absence from duty, if any, between 1996 and 2003 by issuing him supplementary chargesheet but no such action was taken and even suspension order passed against the petitioner came to be stayed on 26th July, 2020. Petitioner was directed to continue to work at Ghaziabad from where he got superannuated. Thus, there being no disciplinary proceeding ever drawn against the petitioner in respect of his alleged non-compliance of transfer order issued in the year 1996 and not joining at Roorkee and his continuance at Ghaziabad, respondents could not have withheld the salary of the petitioner, more especially when by their own conduct in passing the punishment order on 24th December, 2002, no orders were passed regarding his alleged absence from duty and withholding salary for the period.

16. This petition was filed in the year 2009 and respondents had sufficient opportunity to initiate disciplinary proceedings by seeking permission from Hon’ble Governor as is contemplated under 8 of 10 Regulation 351A of Civil Service Regulations but even this was not done. The averments which have been made in the counter affidavit only refer to the departmental inquiries in which it is alleged that petitioner was found to be guilty under the order dated 24th December, 2002.

17. Interestingly, at the cost of reiteration and repetition, I may observe that order of punishment dated 24th December, 2002 has no reflection upon the conduct of the petitioner qua his alleged absence for the period running from 1996 to 2003 at Roorkee Station and, therefore, the punishment order cannot be read into here to reject the claim of petitioner and reject the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary from the year 1996 to 2003.

18. In view of the above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 25th August, 2003 passed by the respondent No.- 1 is hereby quashed.

19. The respondent – State authorities are directed to immediately release the entire arrears of salary of the petitioner for the period running from August, 1996 to 17th January, 2003 after calculating the amount as per the pay-scale admissible to the petitioner while in service during the said period.

20. The calculation shall be made and payment of arrears of salary so calculated shall be made to the petitioner within a 9 of 10 maximum period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Atmesh ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 10 of 10