Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash vs The Haryana State Agricultural ... on 15 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050578
RSA-769-1996 (O&M) -1- . 2024:PHHC:050578
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
205 RSA-769-1996 (O&M)
Date of Decision :15.04.2024
Om Parkash (now deceased) through LRs ..Appellant
Versus
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Ravinder Hooda, Advocate for the appellant.
None for respondent.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. Present regular second appeal has been filed by the appellant-
plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court
dated 18.11.1995 by which, judgment and decree of the trial Court dated
18.12.1990 has been set aside and the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff has
been dismissed.
2. It may be noticed that appellant-plaintiff was suspended by the
Chief Administrator of the respondent-Board vide order dated 21.02.1984.
In the said order, it was mentioned that plaintiff-appellant will be entitled
for subsistence allowance and further that rate of subsistence allowance will
be increased in case, suspension period exceeds the period of six months.
The said order of suspension dated 21.02.1984 was challenged by the
appellant-plaintiff by way of filing a civil suit on the ground that for a period
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050578
RSA-769-1996 (O&M) -2- . 2024:PHHC:050578
of more than one and a half year of order of suspension, no disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against the appellant-plaintiff. Further prayer was
made for the grant of full salary during the period of suspension.
3. Keeping in view the evidence and facts which had come on
record, suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court
vide order dated 18.12.1990 holding that order of suspension passed by the
Chief Administrator was bad as only respondent-Board was competent to
pass the order of suspension dated 21.02.1984.
4. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment and decree of the
trial Court dated 18.12.1990, respondent-Board filed an appeal before the
lower Appellate Court, which appeal was allowed by the lower Appellate
Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.1995 by setting aside the
judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 18.12.1990 holding that Chief
Administrator of the respondent-Board was fully competent to pass an order
of suspension against the appellant-plaintiff keeping in view the Notification
dated 27.10.1980 wherein, Chief Administrator of Haryaan State
Agriculture Marketing Board described as appointing authority of the
Assistant Secretaries and suspension order of the plaintiff-appellant was
passed by the said authority only. With regard to the claim of the appellant-
plaintiff for the grant of full salary during suspension period once, it has
been held that in the order of suspension, it was mentioned that appellant-
plaintiff will be entitled for a particular amount during suspension period,
hence, full salary cannot be claimed by appellant-plaintiff. Said judgment
and decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 18.11.1995 is under challenge
in this present regular second appeal.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050578
RSA-769-1996 (O&M) -3- . 2024:PHHC:050578
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that well
reasoned judgment of the trial Court has been set aside by the lower
Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.1995, which is
perverse and is liable to be set aside.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone
through the record with his able assistance.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff though, argued that
judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 18.11.1995 is
perverse but no such perversity has been pointed out before this Court. The
findings have been recorded by the lower Appellate Court that in the
Notification dated 27.10.1980, the Chief Administrator of the Haryana State
Agricultural Marketing Board was described as appointing authority of the
post of Assistant secretaries of the Marketing Committee and order
suspending the appellant-plaintiff was passed by the said authority only
hence, said finding of the lower Appellate Court needs no interference as
the same has gone unrebutted. Once, under the rules framed, Chief
Administrator of the respondent-Board is the appointing authority and it is a
settled principle of law that appointing authority has full right to suspend the
employee and in the present case, only the said jurisdiction has been
exercised by the Chief Administrator hence, the same cannot be treated to be
bad in law.
8. With regard to the claim of the appellate-plaintiff for the grant
of full salary during suspension period, it was already mentioned in the
order of suspension that as to what amount will be paid to the appellant-
plaintiff for the period of first six months and, thereafter, in case, suspension
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050578
RSA-769-1996 (O&M) -4- . 2024:PHHC:050578
period of the appellant-plaintiff continued. Even as per the settled principle
of law, full salary cannot be claimed for suspension period unless and until
in the departmental proceedings, the said employee gets exoneration.
Nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant-
plaintiff that in the departmental proceedings, the appellant-plaintiff was
exonerated of the allegations of embezzlement.
9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances recorded
hereinabove as no perversity in the judgment and decree of the lower
Appellate Court has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant-
plaintiff, present regular second appeal stands dismissed.
10. Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed
of.
April 15, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
