AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Through the medium of this O.A., the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
"Direct the respondent to pass appropriate order under FR-54B(1) in accordance with law and paid full salary for the period of suspension from 9.9.2008 to 25.11.2009 with consequential benefits."
Briefly stated, the facts of the current O.A. are that the applicant joined as Supervisor in Department of Social Welfare on 03.07.1978. She was placed under suspension on 09.09.2008. Her suspension period was extended for 90 days w.e.f. 03.06.2009. She was reinstated on 26.11.2009.
Thereafter, the applicant made a representation to the respondents for regularization of her suspension period on 06.01.2010, and on 20.12.2010, to which no response was received.
Vide their order dated 18.11.2010, the respondents promoted her on regular basis as CDPO/Superintendent w.e.f. 20.03.1989. At the time of her superannuation, she was given vigilance clearance on 06.08.2012 and subsequently granted regular pension, commutation, gratuity and leave encashment.
The applicant has filed this O.A. seeking the following relief:-
"Direct the respondent to pass appropriate order under FR-54 B(1) in accordance with law and paid full salary for the period of suspension from 9.9.2008 to 25.11.2009 with consequential benefits."
She has placed reliance on FR-54B sub-rule-1, which reads as under:-
"Admissibility of pay and allowances and treatment of service on reinstatement after suspension- 1. When a government servant who has been suspended is reinstated or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement (including premature retirement) while under suspension the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order:-
a) Regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the government servant for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement or the date of his retirement (including premature retirement), as the case may be; and
b) Whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty."
6.1 The applicant has further placed reliance on sub-rule 6 of FR- 54B, which states as follows:-
"Where suspension is revoked pending finalization of the disciplinary or the court proceedings, any order passed under sub-rule(1) before the conclusion of the proceedings against the government servant, shall be reviewed on its own motion after the conclusion of the proceedings by the authority mentioned in sub-rule(1) who shall make an order according to the provisions of sub-rule (3) or sub-rule (5), as the case may be." and sub-rule 3 of FR-54B, which stipulates that:-
"Where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8) be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended."
In the counter, the respondents submit that FIR No.19/08 and 03/09 were lodged against the applicant, which are pending investigation, hence the decision on the treatment of suspension period shall be declared in terms of FR-54B, only after conclusion of the ongoing proceedings against the applicant.
During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant Sh. P.C. Misra reiterated that the applicant was suspended from 09.09.2008 to 03.06.2009 and reinstated on 26.11.2009. However, till now the respondents have not decided as to how the suspension period will be treated. He submitted that he will be satisfied if the respondents decide the applicant's representations dated 06.01.2010 (Annexure-3) and 20.12.2010 (Annexure-4) and pass a reasoned and speaking order on the same.
The learned counsel for the respondents Sh. Vijay Kumar Pandita stated that there are FIRs No. 19/08 and 03/09 lodged against the applicant, which are still under investigation. He argued that the department can only decide about the treatment of suspension period in terms of FR-54B after the ongoing proceedings against the applicant are concluded. On a pointed query about the status of the FIR, which was lodged nearly ten years ago, Sh. Pandita stated that he is not aware of the enact stage of investigation in the said case.
The regularization of period of suspension is covered under FR-54B, as quoted above. I find that the applicant retired from service on 30.04.2010 after which she was given vigilance clearance by the respondents and received full pension, gratuity and leave encashment.
Unfortunately, more than 8 years have lapsed after her superannuation and more than 10 years since the enquiry proceedings were initiated against the applicant. The respondents cannot remain mere mute spectators and plead that they will decide on the period of suspension after the proceedings get finalized. They have to be proactive and ensure that cases are not allowed to linger on unnecessarily, causing mental, social and economic stress to the applicant. In view of the limited request made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the least, which the applicant deserves, is an appropriate order on her representations dated 06.01.2010 and 20.12.2010. I order accordingly.
The respondents are directed to decide the aforementioned two representations of the applicant by way of a reasoned and speaking order not later than three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The OA is accordingly disposed of. No costs.