Patna High Court
Rana Gajendra Prasad Singh vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 1 December, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(1)BLJR371
JUDGMENT R.M. Prasad, J.
1. With consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition itself has been heard on merit for final disposal along with the interlocutory application.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the memo dated 18.2.1985, contained in Annexure 1, whereby and whereunder he was placed under suspension by the respondent authority on account of pendency of a criminal case not related with his service. The petitioner has further sought for a direction to the respondents to pay his full arrears of salary with effect from 18.2.1985 with all legal and consequential benefits. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that besides denial of the aforementioned reliefs, the petitioner has also been kept denied of his subsistence allowance with effect from 1st July, 1995, without any cogent reason.
3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Garrison Engineer, Danapur Cantt. Patna (respondent No. 3). From the said counter affidavit it appears that the claim of the petitioner for payment of subsistence allowance has been rejected, vide order dated 2.11.1998, contained in Annexure E, on the ground that he had been absent from his last place of duty with effect from 1st June, 1991 to 31st January, 1995 and from 1st July, 1995 till today without prior permission and application in contravention of Clause (9) of the Suspension--General Instructions. It is also mentioned that the petitioner has not furnished the certificate in accordance with the Fundamental Rule 53(2). As such, subsistence allowance could not be prepared and paid.
4. On merit, Mr. Amar Nath Singh, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that it is true that the petitioner has been kept under suspension for over 13 long years. Under Clause 13 of instructions issued regarding suspension, the power is vested in the disciplinary authority to review such cases periodically. As such, according to him, the petitioner should move the appropriate authority for review of his suspension.
5. I am unable to accept the said submission of the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. It is true that under Clause 13 power is vested in the disciplinary authority to review the cases of Government servants under suspension but the said provision is mandatory one and the authority himself is obliged to review such cases periodically. The provision itself mentions that the power of review is mandatory one and that the first review is to be undertaken within three months from the date of suspension. It is not the case of the respondents that the suspension of the petitioner was ever reviewed. In the said provision it is mentioned that unduly long suspension, while putting the employee concerned to undue hardship, involves payment of subsistence allowance without the employee performing any useful service to the Government. The authorities concerned therefore, should scrupulously observe the time-limits and review the cases of suspension in the interest of public servant as well to see whether continued suspension in all cases is really necessary. Nothing has been pleaded in the counter-affidavit that the continuance of the suspension in the case of the petitioner was necessary. In fact, the petitioner was placed under suspension not on account of lodging of a criminal case in connection with his official discharge of duty. Under such circumstances, I find no justification to continue the petitioner under suspension any further.
6. Accordingly, the respondents authorities are directed to allow the petitioner to resume his duty forthwith. However, with respect to the arrears of salary for the period of suspension, the authority shall consider his case after the disposal of criminal case pending against him, in accordance with law.
With respect to non-payment of subsistence allowance, it has been submitted by the learned Additional Standing Counsel that from his own application, contained in Annexure 4, it is evident that the petitioner left the headquarter without any information to the concerned authority. Under Clause 9 of the Suspension-General Instructions, an officer under suspension is regarded as subject to all other conditions of service applicable generally to Government servants and cannot leave the station without prior permission. As such, it has been submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for payment of subsistence allowance for the aforementioned period.
7. In reply, Mr. Jha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the absence of the petitioner mentioned in his application related to the period much prior to July. 1995 for which the authority has already regularised the said period though without payment of any subsistence allowance, but from July, 1995 onwards the petitioner has been throughout present in the headquarter.
8. However, under Rule 2(b), (Annexure B), the petitioner was required to submit a certificate to the authority that he was not engaged in any employment, business, profession or vocation during the period to which the claim relates and, admittedly, no such certificate was furnished by the petitioner before the authority concerned.
9. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, respondent No. 3, vide Annexure E, has rightly declined to pay the subsistence allowance. However, if the petitioner produces the certificate before the authority concerned, his case for payment of subsistence allowance from July, 1995, onwards shall be considered afresh, in accordance with law.
10. The writ application along with the interlocutory application, accordingly, stands disposed of.