Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Chawla vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 35694 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Chawla vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 18 December, 2023

Author: Ajit Kumar

Bench: Ajit Kumar

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:239021
 
Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20869 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Chawla
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhiraj Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC
 

 
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner seems to be aggrieved for not being paid salary for the period he faced disciplinary proceedings and had remained under suspension. However, he has made certain more prayers regarding his promotion and other service benefits as he has remained only as a Level I Officer with respondents though he has spent 20 years of service.

3. From the perusal of the judgment passed by the Writ Court dated 29.01.2011 arising out of punishment order, disciplinary proceedings challenged in the Writ Petition No.43818 of 2010, I find that the entire proceeding was quashed and petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. The operative part of the order passed by the Division Bench is reproduced hereunder:

" For the aforesaid reasons the writ petition is allowed. The impugned punishment order dated 17.5.2010, and corrigendum dated 22.5.2010, by which only the date 15.2.2007 is sought to be amended to be read as 15.9.2008, are set aside. Since we find that even if the enquiry report is accepted, none of the charges were proved against the petitioner by any evidence or material or the statement of the witnesses, we quash the entire enquiry proceedings including the charge sheet and the enquiry report. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits."

4. However, upon being appealed against before the Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal No.4381 of 2014 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.15359 of 2011, the Supreme Court modified the order of the High Court to the extent that no salary shall be paid to the petitioner who were respondents therein before the Supreme Court, for the period he had not worked with the establishment. The operative portion of the order of Supreme Court dated 31.03.2014 is reproduced hereunder:

"We, therefore, modify the impugned judgment by directing that no salary shall be paid to the respondent for the period during which he had not worked, however, the said period hall be considered as period in service for the purposes of his pension.

In view of the above, the Civil Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

Contempt Petition No.224 of 2012 is, accordingly, dismissed."

6. In such above view of the matter, therefore, I do not find any justification to direct the respondents for payment of salary to the petitioner for the period in question. However, since the Supreme Court had observed that the period shall be taken to as period in service and that the disciplinary proceedings were set aside against the petitioner, meaning thereby petitioner would be entitled to all other benefits like A.C.P. benefits and promotional benefits.

7. In the circumstances, this petition stands disposed of at this stage with direction to the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation before the respondent no.4 within a period of four weeks to look into, consider and dispose of the same within a further period of two months in the light of the orders of the Division Bench of this Court and the Supreme Court in its operative portion as has been reproduced hereinabove.

Order Date :- 18.12.2023

Deepika