This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to Proceedings No.CWC/XIII-8/17/85/AV/26, dated 24-12-1991 of the 2nd respondent as confirmed by the 1st respondent in his Memorandum No.CWC/XIII-8/17/85/AV/1125, dated 3-8-1995 and the Proceedings No.CWC/XIII-8/Misc/Gen/97/AV/1000, dated 12-8-1997 of the Senior Assistant Manager (Vigilance) of the Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal.

Though the petitioner made a challenge to various orders, the only question that falls for consideration, in this Writ Petition, is whether, while imposing a minor penalty of censure, the competent authority was correct in treating period of suspension as ‘not on duty’ and the petitioner is not entitled for full wages.

It appears, the petitioner while working as a Senior Assistant Manager (G), Central Warehousing Corporation, Regional Office, Lucknow, was suspended from service by an Order dated 11-11-1985. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued and a detailed enquiry was conducted. The disciplinary authority, by an Order dated 24-12-1991, held that use of intemperate language while sending communications to seniors is not expected from a Group ‘A’ Officer, who is supposed to be at a higher intellectual level than an ordinary worker. The misconduct is quite serious. However, keeping in view the young age of the petitioner, a lenient view was taken so as to afford him an opportunity to improve his behaviour and to be careful in his work in future and was imposed with a minor penalty of Censure. However, it was held that the period of his suspension will not count as period ‘spent on duty’ and he will not be paid anything over and above the subsistence allowance granted for the period of suspension. Aggrieved by the same, he had filed an appeal and the same was rejected by an Order dated 3-8-1995 of the 2nd respondent. However, the petitioner made a representation to the Senior Assistant Manager (Vig), Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi seeking payment of full salary for the suspension period and to treat the period of suspension as on duty, but the same was also rejected on 12-8-1997. Challenging the said orders, the present Writ Petition is filed.

A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is asserted that the very Writ Petition is not maintainable, since no part of cause of action arose in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the respondents have no authority under the law, while imposing punishment of censure, to treat the period of suspension as not on duty and to hold that the petitioner is not entitled for anything over and above the subsistence allowance paid. In fact, the very suspension was not warranted in view of minor misconduct and there are guidelines from the Government of India not to suspend an employee against whom a minor punishment is required to be imposed. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled for full wages for the period he was under suspension and the period of suspension be treated as on duty. Further, the Writ Petition is very much maintainable and the Offices of the respondent-Corporation are located at Visakhapatnam and Hyderabad and the impugned orders were communicated while the petitioner was working at Visakhapatnam and Hyderabad. Therefore, a part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and as such, the Writ Petition is maintainable.

Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the very contention of the petitioner that no suspension could have been ordered by the competent authority, where the punishments required to be imposed is only censure, even if the misconduct is proved, is misconceived. The Circulars issued by the Central Government, as referred to by the learned counsel