Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1491/2021 on 26 November, 2021
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
SL. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSS No.1491 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Prabhat Bohra, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. Sachin Mohan Singh Mehta, Brief
Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand.
The precise facts in the present writ
petition are that the petitioner contends, that
after he being initially inducted as an Assistant
Teacher (LT) Grade, as back as on 31.05.2003,
ever since then he had been working
satisfactorily and claims to be having an
unblemished records, till on the basis of the
complaint, a case which was registered against
the petitioner being Case No.123/35/6/2019,
which was registered before the Human Rights
Commission.
As a consequence of the registration of
the aforesaid complaint, the District Education
Officer, who is alleged to have acted arbitrary
and with the mala fide intention, has conducted
an inquiry, and had submitted his inquiry report
on 12.02.2021, for the purposes of
recommending the departmental proceeding
against the petitioner. As a consequence of the
said communication, the petitioner was placed
under suspension on 04.03.2021, and ever since
then, he had been kept under suspension.
Hence, the petitioner contends, that apart from
the fact that the suspension has persisted for a
period beyond, than what has been
contemplated in the Financial Handbook Part 2
to 4, Rule 53, he would otherwise would be
otherwise also entitled for the payment of the
subsistence allowance, which has been alleged
to have been malafidely curtailed by the
respondents for no valid reasons, despite of the
fact that there had been a communication made
by the superior authorities for the purposes of
remittance of the subsistence allowance, which
the petitioner was otherwise legally entitled to
receive during the period, when he is kept
under suspension, and it has to be
proportionately revised depending upon the
length of the period for which he has continued
to be placed under suspension.
At this stage, it is being stated by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, that it is
rather the respondent No.3, who is ceased with
the departmental proceedings, and no decision
as such has been taken by him till date, and due
to its pendency, apart from the fact that, it is
causing harassment to the petitioner, he has also
being deprived of proportionate increased
subsistence allowances, which is creating a
financial crisis for him to meet up his and his
family needs.
Without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the matter, I am of the view that as per
the Rule 53 of the Financial Handbook Part 2 to
4, the suspended employee cannot be placed
and put under suspension for an indefinite
period, and the departmental proceedings are
expected to be completed within a time
schedule as provided under the Financial
Handbook itself, and for the said period, he
would be entitled to be remitted with the
subsistence allowance in accordance with Rule
53 of the Financial Handbook.
Thus, this writ petition is being disposed
of with a direction to the respondent No.3, to
ensure to conclude the entire departmental
proceedings against the petitioner, within a
period of three months from the date of the
production of a certified copy of this judgment.
He is further directed to ensure, that the
subsistence allowance and the revised
subsistence allowance depending upon the
length of the period of the suspension of the
petitioner, would be paid during the period
when the departmental inquiry, as directed
above, is concluded by him.
Subject to the above observations, the
writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
26.11.2021
NR/
