Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 November, 2021

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11522/2021

Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Muridhar, Aged About 41 Years, House No. 11/521 Mukta Prasad Nagar, Bikaner, District Bikaner (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The District Collector (Land Record), Sri Ganganagar.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. N.R. Budania.
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. M.S. Rathore.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                    Order

22/11/2021

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved against

the order dated 12.03.2021 (Annex.8), whereby, for the period

the petitioner remained under suspension i.e. from 05.06.2012 to

04.08.2016, order has been passed that he shall not be entitled to

any pay and allowances except for the subsistence allowance

received by him.

The petitioner - Patwari was proceeded under the Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988 and was placed under suspension by order

dated 14.06.2012 under Rule 13 (1) (b) and 13 (2) of the

Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,

1958 ('the Rules of 1958') with effect from 05.06.2012, on the

date when he was arrested.

(2 of 5) [CW-11522/2021]

The criminal trial against the petitioner remained pending

and by order dated 04.08.2016 (Annex.4) the competent authority

pursuant to the directions of the Joint Secretary dated 27.07.2016

reinstated the petitioner. While reinstating the petitioner no

indication was made as to the pay and allowances for the period

the petitioner remained under suspension.

By judgment dated 24.01.2020, the Court of Sessions Judge,

Anti Corruption Matters, Sri Ganganagar, acquitted the petitioner

giving him benefit of doubt.

The petitioner approached the respondent - District Collector

(Land Records), Sri Ganganagar seeking payment of the balance

pay and allowances for the period he remained under suspension.

In the meanwhile, by order dated 11.08.2020, the petitioner

was again placed under suspension on account of lodging of

another case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The

competent authority by its order impugned dated 12.03.2021,

after noticing the facts pertaining to suspension, judgment of the

competent court and the fact that competent authority has

decided not to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal,

noticed that by order dated 11.08.2020, the petitioner has been

placed under suspension and was under suspension, came to the

conclusion that for the period of 05.06.2012 to 04.08.2016 except

for the subsistence allowance paid to the petitioner, he was not

entitled for balance pay and other emoluments.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that action of the

respondents is not justified. It was submitted that once the

petitioner has been acquitted by the criminal court, there is no

apparent reason whatsoever for the respondents to deny him the

balance pay and emoluments in accordance with law.

(3 of 5) [CW-11522/2021]

Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Kuldeep

Kumar Verma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.13688/2015, decided on 06.12.2017.

Learned counsel appearing for the State made submissions

that the respondents have exercised powers under Rule 54 of the

Rules of 1951 and as the acquittal of the petitioner is by giving

benefit of doubt i.e. the same is not a clean acquittal, the

respondents are justified in denying the balance pay &

emoluments to the petitioner for the period of suspension and,

therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

Provisions of Rule 54 reads as under:-

"Rule 54. Reinstatement : (1) When a Government servant who has been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended is re-instated or would have been re-instated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension, the authority competent to order the re- instatement shall consider and make a specific order:-

(a) Regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of his absence from duty or for the period of suspension ending with the date of his retirement on superannuation as the case may be; and

(b) Whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spend on duty.

(2). Where such competent authority holds that the Government servant has been fully exonerated or, in the case of suspension that it was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall be given the full pay and dearness allowance to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired as a penalty or suspended, as the case may be. (3). In other cases, the Government servant shall be given such proportion of such pay and dearness allowance as such competent authority may prescribe. (4). In a case falling under clause (2) the period of absence from duty shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes.

(5). In a case falling under clause (3) the period of absence from duty shall not be treated as a period on duty unless such authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose:

(4 of 5) [CW-11522/2021]

Provided that if the Government so desires, such authority may direct that the period of absence from duty shall be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible to the Government servant.

Note: The order of the competent authority regarding the treatment of the period of absence from duty passed under this proviso is absolute and no higher sanction would be necessary for the grant of extraordinary leave in excess of three months in so far as temporary Government servant are concerned.

(6) In cases where punishment order does not indicate as to whether the suspension period is to be counted for the purpose of pension or not, the period of suspension shall be counted for the purpose of pension. In all other cases, action shall be taken as per punishment order. (7) Any payment made under this rule to a Government servant on his reinstatement shall be subject to adjustment of the amount, if any, earned by him through an employment, business, profession or vocation during the period between the date of removal, dismissal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and the date of reinstatement. Where the emoluments admissible under this rule are equal to or less than the amount earned during the employment, business, profession or vocation elsewhere, nothing shall be paid to the Government servant."

A perusal of the above provision would reveal that the

respondents were required to pass appropriate order under Rule

54 at the time of reinstatement of the petitioner.

A bare look at the order dated 04.08.2016 (Annex.4) reveals

that except for ordering for reinstatement of the petitioner from

suspension, not a word has been indicated regarding the balance

pay and emoluments.

The submission made that on account of lack of clean

acquittal by the criminal court, the order impugned has been

passed, apparently has no substance as the order impugned

except for noticing the facts of the case and additional fact that

petitioner was under suspension w.e.f 11.08.2020, the amount

has been denied by observing as under:-

"vr% Jh jes"k dqekj "kekZ iVokjh dks fuyEcu vof/k ¼fuyEcu fnukad 05-06-2012 ,oa cgkyh fnukad 04-08-2016½ ds Hkqxrku

(5 of 5) [CW-11522/2021]

fd;s tk pqds fuokZg HkRrs ds vfrfjDr "ks'k osru HkRrs ns; ugha gksxsaA"

The order does not indicate that on account of lack of alleged

clean acquittal of the petitioner, he was denied the grant of

balance pay and emoluments and, therefore, it cannot be said that

under Rule 54 of the Rules of 1951 the power has been exercised.

Merely because subsequent to the passing of the judgment

for which the petitioner was placed under suspension and

subsequently reinstated, the petitioner has again been placed

under suspension cannot have any implication for the period the

petitioner earlier remained under suspension.

In that view of the matter, as the respondents failed to pass

any appropriate order while reinstating the petitioner regarding

treatment of the period during which the petitioner remained

under suspension and the order impugned dated 12.03.2021

(Annex.8) does not indicate any of the ingredients of Rule 54 of

the Rules of 1951, the order impugned cannot be sustained.

Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is

allowed. The order dated 12.03.2021 (Annex.8) passed by the

respondents is quashed and set-aside.

The respondents are directed to pay the difference of full pay

and allowances other than the subsistence allowance already paid

to the petitioner from the period of suspension, within a period of

two months from the date.