Allahabad High Court
Shiva Kant Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 13 February, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9561-DB
In The High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad
Sitting At Lucknow
Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7647 of 2023
Petitioner :- Shiva Kant Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Pandey,Ajeet Srivastav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
(1) Supplementary affidavit filed by the State today is taken on record.
(2) In compliance of the Court's order dated 16.12.2024, Shri Peeyush Srivastava, the then Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar is present in Court.
(3) Heard Shri Ramesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prakhar Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State.
(4) This writ petition is directed against the judgment/order dated 06.11.2019 passed by the U. P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.1933 of 2017, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by him for a relief which was prayed for as under:
"To quash the impugned punishment order dated 16.12.2016 (Annexure No.1) with the resultant rejection order dated 28.06.2017 (Annexure No.2) full pay in view of the final report, C.O. report and Hon'ble High Court order withdrawing suspension order etc."
(5) The order dated 16.12.2016 in its operative part reads as under:
"आरोपी श्री शिवाकान्त पाण्डेय, सेवानिवृत्त मुख्य आरक्षी ना०पु०, द्वारा दिये गये स्पष्टीकरण एवं पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध अभिलेखों का मेरे द्वारा सहानूभूतिपूर्वक गहराई से अवलोकन किये जाने पर यह तथ्य प्रकाश में आया कि आरोपी श्री शिवाकान्त पाण्डेय, सेवानिवृत्त मुख्य आरक्षी ना०पु०, निर्देशो के बावजूद भी थाना टाण्डा से दिनॉकः 21.09.2013 को जी०डी० रपट नं० 36 समय 18.25 बजे रवानगी करने के उपरान्त अपनी आमद पुलिस लाइन अम्बेडकरनगर में न करके अपने मनमाने ढंग से अनुपस्थित रहा साथ ही अपने अनुपस्थित के सम्बन्ध में कोई सूचना विभाग को न देकर पुलिस रेग्युलेशन के पैरा 381, 382 का भी पालन नहीं किया गया है ऐसी स्थिति में श्री शिवाकान्त पाण्डेय, सेवानिवृत्त मुख्य आरक्षी ना०पु० को निलम्बन अवधि दिनॉक 20.09.2013 से 01.03.2016 तक कुल 893 दिवस में भुगतान किये गये वेतन भत्ते के अतिरिक्त अवशेष वेतन/भत्ता भुगतान किये जाने का कोई औचित्य नहीं है।
अतएव सेवानिवृत्त मुख्य आरक्षी ना०पु० श्री शिवाकान्त पाण्डेय, निलम्बन अवधि दिनॉक 20.09.2013 से 01.03.2016 तक कुल 893 दिवस में जो वेतन भत्ता प्राप्त कर चुके हैं, के अतिरिक्त अन्य कोई अवशेष वेतन भत्ता/भुगतान न किये जाने का आदेश पारित किया जाता है, निलम्बत्त अवधि पेंशन, पदोन्नति, अवकाश आदि प्रकरणों में सम्मिलित की जायेगी।"
(6) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner while in service was placed under suspension on 20.09.2013 on the basis of a criminal case being registered against him. This power was exercised by the disciplinary authority by virtue of Rule 17 (1) (b) of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "1991 Rules"). The averments made in the writ petition as well as before the Tribunal reveal that the petitioner continued under suspension from 20.09.2013 to 01.03.2016. The petitioner was reinstated in service by the disciplinary authority without affecting the pending disciplinary proceedings initiated in the meanwhile against him. On the reinstatement of the petitioner in service with the passing of order dated 02.03.2016, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation thereafter on 31.03.2016 and all the pensionary benefits also seem to have been paid to the petitioner after his retirement, however, the amount of pay which the petitioner was entitled to for the period of suspension remain unpaid. Although the order regarding pay for the period of suspension ought to have been passed by the competent authority right at the time of reinstating him in service but due to the pendency of both i.e. disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings, the same was not done. It appears that a final report was forwarded in the criminal proceedings on 20.05.2016 which was accepted by the Court concerned on 19.06.2016 and the petitioner stood exonerated of the allegations made in the F.I.R. In so far as the disciplinary proceedings were concerned, consequent upon the revocation of his suspension, the petitioner was also exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings by an order passed on 24.11.2016. On conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings by the competent authority as above, a show cause notice came to be issued against the petitioner on the same day as to why the difference of salary for the period of suspension from 20.09.2013 to 01.03.2016 i.e. for a period of 893 days may not be withheld.
(7) It is noteworthy that the show cause notice for deciding the payment of difference of salary itself indicates, as if, the subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner had been paid to him while the disciplinary proceedings/criminal investigation remained pending. The petitioner filed his reply in response to the show cause notice dated 24.11.2016 on 10.12.2016. In the reply filed by the petitioner against the show cause notice, he has offered detailed explanation and it was specifically mentioned in para 1 of the reply that the petitioner was paid nothing during the period of suspension. The disciplinary authority having regard to the reply submitted by the petitioner passed a final order on 16.12.2016 wherein, the entitlement of the petitioner for subsistence allowance remained completely unattended.
(8) The operative part of the order clearly shows that the disciplinary authority seems to have proceeded on the assumption, as if, the subsistence allowance was already paid to the petitioner. This clearly indicates that the disciplinary authority did not apply his mind on non-payment of the subsistence allowance which had remained unpaid to the petitioner from 20.09.2013 to 01.03.2016. The disciplinary authority as regards withholding the difference of salary has, however, made some observations in the order passed on 16.12.2016 to the effect that the petitioner failed to join at the place of his attachment and there was no compliance of paras 381 and 382 of the Police Regulations. It may be relevant to note that the petitioner who was faced with the criminal proceedings as well as the departmental proceedings was not visited with any conviction or punishment as an outcome of the proceedings against him. That being the position and in absence of any justification in the order dated 16.12.2016 attributing the cause of delay in the conclusion of the proceedings against the petitioner, the amount of difference of salary was liable to be released in his favour. No justification for denial of the same has been recorded in the order passed on 16.12.2016.
(9) In these circumstances, the petitioner was thus entitled to the entire salary payable to him during the period of suspension and the same could not be denied. The learned Tribunal while adjudicating upon the claim petition has not considered all these aspects of the matter and has rather proceeded, as if, the subsistence allowance was paid and the denial of payment was confined only to the arrears of difference of salary. In this manner, the Tribunal also erred in so far as the real grievance of the petitioner is concerned. Non-application of mind though apparent on the face of order dated 16.12.2016 went unnoticed by the learned Tribunal and in this manner, the petitioner has been subjected to deprivation of his valuable pecuniary right in a manner subversive of law.
(10) We do not find any plausible justification recorded by the disciplinary authority or by the Tribunal while denying the salary for the period of suspension. We equally notice a serious lapse regarding non-payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner during the period of suspension particularly when the disciplinary/criminal proceedings were pending.
(11) In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 06.11.2019 passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.1933 of 2017 and order dated 16.12.2016 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar are hereby set aside. The salary payable to the petitioner for the period from 20.09.2013 to 01.03.2016 shall be released in his favour not later than a period of two months from the date of production of this order.
(12) Costs made easy.
[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.]
Order Date :- 13.2.2025
akhilesh/-
