AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner challenges Ext.P12 order by which the period during which he was kept under suspension i.e., from 13.08.2008 to 08.07.2009 is
treated as suspension itself.
The petitioner retired from service on 31.10.2012 while working as Executive Officer. He commenced his service under the respondents as
Devaswom Executive Officer on 24.05.1995. While so, he was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 order issued on 13.08.2008 on certain
allegations relating to financial irregularities raised against him. However, as per Ext.P2 order dated 09.07.2009, he was reinstated. He retired
from service in the year 2012. Even though, the suspension was ordered alleging misappropriation, financial irregularities etc., no memo of charge
was issued either before or after reinstatement. Subsequent to the retirement from service, petitioner submitted several representations requesting
for his terminal benefits and for regularizing the period of suspension. Petitioner submits that he was not granted arrears of pay, arrears D.A., grade
promotion, gratuity, leave surrender value etc. on account of the suspension. At the same time, it is pointed out that juniors, who entered service in
1998, were granted grade promotion in the year 2011 and they received all benefits on their retirement in 2014. On the basis of the repeated
representations before the respondents, the second respondent finally issued Ext.P12 order, in which it was stated that the allegations based on
which the petitioner was placed under suspension stand even then, pointing out that petitioner did not take any steps for rectifying the
defects/irregularities pointed out in the accounts maintained in the offices where the petitioner worked as Executive Officer. It was also stated that
the disciplinary action was not finalized even after 5 years of the retirement of the petitioner. Referring to the audit reports, it was ordered that as
the allegations stand against the petitioner the period from 13.08.2008 to 08.07.2009 during which the petitioner was placed under suspension can
only be treated as suspension.
The respondents have not filed counter affidavit.
The learned Standing Counsel pointed out that even though, disciplinary proceedings were not initiated, the suspension was on account of
objections raised in the audit.
The petitioner has retired from service as early as on 31.10.2012. Admittedly, no disciplinary action was initiated against him, though he was
placed under suspension for almost 1 year. When there is no finding as to the misconduct, if any, committed by the petitioner in a duly conducted
enquiry and not even a memo of charge was issued to him, respondents are not justified in concluding that the period of suspension cannot be
regularized or that it has to be treated as suspension. Moreover, there is no provision for treating the period of suspension as suspension itself. In
the absence of any finding on any allegations against him or even any charge against him, petitioner cannot be denied any of the benefits for the
period during which he was kept under suspension or on account of such suspension.
Even otherwise there is no justification in denying him grade promotion or pay revision arrears or any other service benefits on the ground that
he was placed under suspension for some time. Petitioner is entitled to all these benefits at least on par with his juniors of the petitioner. When an
order of suspension was issued in contemplation of disciplinary action and the employee is thereafter re-instated subject to disciplinary action and
finally the employer allows to retire him from service without initiating any disciplinary action, the order of suspension itself has to be found
unjustified and baseless. In the result petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits as if he was not placed under suspension. Petitioner
would therefore be entitled to pay and allowances along with arrears and to get his pay fixed as if there was no suspension. He would be entitled to
promotion for which he became eligible on par with his juniors and to get his pay fixed accordingly. He would thereafter be entitled to get his
pensionary benefits also fixed on the basis of the pay thus re-fixed.
In the above circumstances, I find that Ext.P12 order is liable to be quashed. Petitioner shall be entitled to all benefits as if he continued without
interruption till his retirement. The respondents shall pass orders sanctioning and disbursing all the service benefits including arrears of pay, arrears
of D.A., grade promotion, gratuity, leave surrender value and all other benefits due to him within a period of ''two months'' from the date of receipt
of a copy of the judgment.