Delhi High Court
Viresh Saxena vs Union Of India & Anr. on 29 August, 2016
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment dated: 29th August, 2016
+ W.P.(C) 2824/2016
VIRESH SAXENA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.K.P.Gupta, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with
Mr.Waize Ali Noor and Mr.Pranav
Aggarwal, Advocates.
Mr.Rajnish Prasad, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 26th November,
2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to
as "The Tribunal").
2. The petitioner was initially employed by DoT and subsequently by a
Presidential order dated 27th July, 2012, he was permanently absorbed with
MTNL w.e.f. 01.10.2000. At the time when he was working with MTNL on
deputation, on 26th September, 2001, he was detained in police custody in
respect of a criminal offence while working as SDE. Resultantly, on
11th December, 2001, he was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f. 26th
September, 2001. By an order dated 12th May, 2003, the petitioner was
acquitted by the Special Judge, (Anti Corruption), Meerut. The petitioner
was then served with a memorandum of charge on 6th March, 2004.
Thereafter, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner.
The order of suspension was, however, revoked on 09 th March, 2004. After
an Inquiry Officer was appointed in the year 2004, a report was submitted on
21st January, 2011. The respondent No.1 herein imposed a punishment on
28th December, 2011 of reduction of pay by two stages in the time scale of
pay for a period of two years with further direction that the charged officer
will not earn increment of pay during the period of such reduction and on
expiry of such period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing
the future increment of his pay. The petitioner made a representation against
the aforesaid order of punishment on 30th July, 2012. The representation was
considered and by an order dated 05th November, 2012 the representation
was decided and it was found that the same was devoid of merit and ordered
that the pay and allowances during the suspension period from 26 th
September, 2001 to 09th March, 2004 would be restricted to the subsistence
allowance already paid and the period of suspension to be counted as duty
for all purposes including for pension.
3. The grievance of the petitioner before the Tribunal was two-fold.
Firstly, during the period of suspension he should have been granted full pay
and allowances and secondly during the period of such suspension he should
be granted annual increments. As far as the first prayer is concerned, the
petitioner concedes that he would not press the same but would press for
grant of subsistence allowance in accordance with law, if not already paid,
i.e. 50% for first six months and thereafter 75%. As far as the second
complaint is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits on
instructions issued to him from DoT on 3rd August, 2016 that there was no
direction to respondent No.2 not to grant any increments during the period of
suspension.
4. Resultantly, the impugned order is modified. The respondents are
directed to grant suspension allowance to the petitioner @ 50% for first six
months and thereafter @ 75%, if not already paid and the respondents shall
remain bound by the statement made by the counsel on instructions that the
petitioner would be entitled to annual increment during the period of
suspension. The order would be passed by the respondents within a period of
three months from today and consequently the pay of the petitioner shall be
fixed and arrears thereafter shall be paid.
5. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
G.S.SISTANI
(JUDGE)
I.S.MEHTA
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 29, 2016
'dc'
