Allahabad High Court
Deepak Talwar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 May, 2022
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5317 of 2022
Petitioner :- Deepak Talwar
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shobh Nath,Neeraj Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar,Ravi Prakash Pandey
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Ghaziabad Development Authority.
By means of this petition, petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent no.2 to permit him joining in terms of the order passed by the Writ Court on 30.07.2021 passed in Writ A No.13453 of 2018 and also to make payment of salary including the salary for the period during which he was under suspension in the matter of disciplinary proceeding which culminated in the order dispensing the services of the petitioner on 09.03.2018 that came to be set aside by this Court in the writ petition (supra) but never appealed against and, thus, attained finality.
Per contra, it is argued by Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that prior to passing of order dated 09.03.2018, there were already two disciplinary proceedings pending; one by issuance of charge sheet dated 21.06.2012 and other by issuance of charge sheet dated 31.10.2017. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioner was not required to be suspended in both the disciplinary proceedings as he had already been suspended in the matter of disciplinary proceedings that had been instituted against him pursuant to the charge sheet dated 28.09.2017.
It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the department had no occasion to conclude those proceedings as the petitioner's services that stood terminated vide order dated 09.03.2018.
Sri Arun Kumar further submits that even though the order dated 09.03.2018 has been set aside by this Court vide order dated 30.07.2021 (supra), this by itself would not absolve the petitioner from charges pursuant to the charge sheets already issued to him and since the services of the petitioner had come to be restored under the judgment of this Court, the respondents are free to pursue the disciplinary proceedings. He further submitted that those disciplinary proceedings were not in question at all in the earlier writ petition.
On the question of petitioner's reinstatement, counsel for the respondent has submitted that since the petitioner was earlier not suspended only on the ground that he was already in suspended mode in the matter of disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the charge sheet dated 28.09.2017, now the petitioner would be continued to be in suspended category.
Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and their arguments raised across the bar, I find that the issue arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in service in terms of judgment of this Court dated 30.07.2021 or would continue to be treated under suspension to face the disciplinary proceedings.
In so far as the question of continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is concerned, the Court is of the considered view that in the event petitioner stands reinstated under the judgment of this Court dated 30.07.2021 and since thsoe earlier inquiry proceedings were not in question before the Court, it will be open for the employer to continue those proceedings to bring the same to their logical end and the petitioner cannot take the plea that he is no more to face the inquiry.
The Court is of the further considered view that since the petitioner had not been suspended in respect of the earlier inquiries, may be on the ground that he was already placed under suspension in a subsequent inquiry, this by itself would not permit the employer to treat him in a suspended mode of employment. The employer was required to pass fresh order if he wanted to place him under suspension again, but then only after reinstatement.
Further, Court is of the view that the suspension by itself is not punishment, the reason being a person attached to a office is not permitted to function regularly and discharge regular mode of service so as to not influence the inquiry and also further not give opportunity to manipulate records. Here, I find it to be a case where one inquiry is as old as of the year 2012 and it is admitted to the respondent that from 2012 to 2017 he was never suspended. So far as the subsequent inquiry is concerned, that inquiry is also of 2017. Petitioner continued under suspension in a third inquiry which ultimately resulted in his dismissal from service.
Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has sufficiently remained under suspension and whatever records are with the respondents, they can continue with the inquiry on that basis. Now at this stage, this cannot be said that if the petitioner is permitted to continue in service pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 30.07.2021, he would in any manner manipulate the records.
In view of the above discussions/observations made, I reach to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 30.07.2021 and is also entitled to regular salary. So far as payment of arrears of salary for the period petitioner had been under suspension is concerned, the same shall abide by the result of the pending two inquires. Petitioner shall participate in inquiry by submitting his reply, if already not submitted, and if inquiry proceedings have not been concluded in absence of any reply or have not been concluded because of third inquiry, the same shall be concluded within next two months' time.
Petitioner shall duly be permitted to participate in the inquiry and after the inquiry report is submitted, the disciplinary proceedings shall ultimately be brought to its logical end within a further period of two months by religiously complying with the procedure prescribed for under the relevant inquiry rules.
It is made clear that once the petitioner stands reinstated which shall take place within two weeks from today, petitioner shall continue to receive his current salary without any deductions.
On the question of subsistence allowance for the period petitioner had been under suspension, petitioner shall have the liberty to make a representation raising his grievances and giving details of his continuance in the office where he was attached during the suspension period and in the event any such representation is made within three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the competent authority within next six weeks' time.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands allowed. No order as to cost.
Order Date :- 24.5.2022
P Kesari
