Shiv Narain vs State

Mohammad Rafiq, J.—These two writ petitions have been filed by Shiv Narain and Dhanne Singh Rathore, who were placed under suspension by order dated 4.5.2006 & 3.5.2006 respectively. Petitioner-Shiv Narain approached this Court by filing the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5490/2008 against the aforesaid order of suspension. The writ petition was dismissed by order dated 30.5.2008 with liberty to the petitioner to file representation for revocation of suspension under Rule 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. Petitioner-Shiv Narain submitted such representation on 7.6.2008. The competent authority by order dated 2.12.2001 (Annexure-7) revoked the suspension of the petitioner. Similarly, petitioner Dhanne Singh Rathore was also placed under suspension by order dated 3.5.2006. He retired from services on 28.9.2007. While under suspension, he also submitted a representation for revocation of his suspension on 10.8.2006. The competent authority passed the order dated 21.7.2010 and held that final decision as to the settlement of the pension and retiral dues would be taken after completion of the judicial proceedings. The petitioners and four other employees of the respondent-department was proceeded against a criminal trial for offence u/s. 376(2)(B) of IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Hanumangarh vide judgement dated 8.1.2013 acquitted all the accused including the present petitioners. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Hanumangarh by order dated 11.1.2013 as on that basis revoked the suspension and directed that his suspension period shall be treated as spent on duty and that he shall be entitled to all the benefits for the period of suspension. Similarly another co-delinquent/co-accused Milkha Singh was also reinstated in service by order of the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Churu directing that since the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges by the trial Court, the departmental enquiry pending against him is dropped and that his period of suspension shall be treated as part of his service for all purpose.

Learned counsel for the petitioners in the course of arguments cited the order dated 30.7.2013 passed in the case of Bachchu Singh Meena, who is also placed under suspension along with other five and he was also one of the accused in the criminal case. In his case too, the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel by order dated 30.7.2013, revoked his suspension in view of acquittal by the trial Court and directed that his period of suspension shall be treated as part of service for payment of entire salary/emoluments/allowances and the differential amount was ordered to be paid to him.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that while petitioner-Dhanne Singh Rathore retired in 30.9.2007, petitioner Shiv Narain retired on 31.3.2013. In the case of all others, the respondents have passed positive order. In the case of these two petitioners, who have retired and were enrobed in a false case and have been honorary acquitted, yet they have not been granted the similar benefits. The approach of the State is therefore discriminatory and arbitrary. Petitioners who were on lower ladder of service have not been so far given their retiral benefits and their pension case has not been finalised.

Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned Government Counsel has submitted that while the order has been passed in the case of others regarding dropping of the departmental enquiry, but in the case of petitioners, such order has yet not been passed by the Director and, therefore, till that is not done, the case of the petitioners for pension cannot be finalised.

The respondents have not come out with a plea that any charge sheet or even any preliminary enquiry was initiated in the matter. When the charges against all six accused were common and they were acquitted by the criminal court and if in the case of others, the respondents have maintained that the departmental enquiry against them stands dropped, there is no question of departmental enquiry being pending against the petitioners. In fact, there is none.

The action of the respondents thus in not extending the similar benefits to the petitioners is held arbitrary. The respondents are required to pass order requisite under Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 as to the manner the period of suspension of the petitioners would be dealt with. Since in the case of others, they have directed that the period of suspension shall be treated as spent on duty and all the consequential benefits have been granted, the same treatment ought to be accorded to the petitioners.

In the result, these writ petitions succeed and are accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to grant benefits of full salary and other emoluments to the petitioners minus the subsistence allowance paid to them and also if pending that period they were entitled to any increment or pay revision, extend the similar benefit to them and on that basis finalise their pension case.

Compliance of the judgement be made within a period of two months from the date copy of this judgement is produced before the respondents.