Gopi Vallabh Verma vs State and Others

Ajay Rastogi, J.—Instant petition has been filed assailing order dt. 21/02/2008 by which after order of acquittal being passed by competent court of jurisdiction vide judgment dt. 19/12/2007 in a criminal case registered against Petitioner on 03/10/2004, the authority regularised period of suspension while holding it a qualifying service for pensionable purposes but observed that he shall not be paid other than subsistence allowance already paid during suspension.

It has come on record that Petitioner while working as Office Superintendent on account of criminal case being instituted against him, remained in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, as a result whereof, he was placed under suspension vide order dt. 22/02/2005 and pendente criminal trial, stood retired from service on attaining age of superannuation on 31/12/2006, and thereafter was acquitted by a competent court of jurisdiction vide judgment dt.19/12/2007 and taking note whereof, the Respondents took decision to regularise period of suspension treating it as a qualifying service for pensionable purposes but would not be entitled to be paid salary other than subsistence allowance having been paid during suspension.

Counsel for Petitioner submits that once the Petitioner has been acquitted by competent court of jurisdiction, he is entitled for full pay & allowances for the period of his suspension and impugned action of the Respondent-2 is not in conformity with Rule 54(2) of RSR and requires to be interfered with by this Court.

Under Rule 54 of RSR, it has to be examined by the authority in two different exigencies where Government servant has been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired from service, obviously either on the basis of conviction or in a disciplinary inquiry, if he is reinstated on exoneration, his period of suspension has to be regularised in terms of Rule 54 (2) of RSR.

At the same time, in case of those who were placed under suspension, it has to be examined as to whether his suspension was wholly justified or not; and if it was wholly unjustified, Government servant is entitled for full pay & allowances, but if it is not wholly unjustified, his period of service during suspension has to be regularised by the authority in terms of Rule 54(3) of RSR.

In the instant case, on account of criminal case being instituted against Petitioner and after having remained in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, there is a deeming provision Under Rule 13(2) of CCA Rules, 1958 to place an employee under suspension; and the present Petitioner indisputably remained in judicial custody for moth than 48 hours; and taking note whereof, no discretion was left to the authority in having passed an order placing him under suspension in terms of Rule 13(2) of CCA Rules and before there could be a final conclusion in criminal case instituted against him, he stood retired from service. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, action taken by the authority placing him under suspension cannot be said to be wholly unjustified.

In present given facts & circumstances of the case, Petitioner stood retired much before the order of acquittal being passed by competent court of jurisdiction, the period of suspension was left open for being regularised by authority Under Rule 54 (3) of RSR. The discretion exercised by the authority is in conformity with Scheme of Rules and this Court does not find any error in the decision making process adopted by the Respondents warranting interference.

Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.