Point of Law: Petitioner having participated in the proceedings and not contested the penalty order passed thereof, cannot now, at a much later point of time, challenge the charge sheet which resulted in the penalty.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: -

“In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned herein above and the submissions made, the Petitioner prays that the Hon’ble High Court may be graciously pleased to :

(i) issue rule nisi to the Respondents;

(ii) quash and set aside the Office Order dated 29.05.2020 [Annexure : P-1] and Office Order dated 01.06.2020 [Annexure : P-2] as being without jurisdiction, and also bad and non-est in law;

(iii) consequently, direct Respondent No.4 to release all retiral dues to the Petitioner, including Gratuity, Leave Salary, Commutation of Pension and Pension, forthwith;

(iv) direct that the entire Period of Suspension of the Petitioner [20.11.2014 to 30.05.2016] is to be treated as on duty for all purposes and that the Petitioner would be entitled to full salary and all allowances for the said period;

(v) direct Respondent No.4 to release full salary and all allowances the Petitioner for the period of suspension of the Petitioner [20.11.2014 to 30.05.2016];

(vi) quash and set aside the Penalty Order dated ___.04.2019 [Annexure : P-4] as being without jurisdiction, and also bad and non-est in law;

(vii) direct refund of the monies recovered from the salary of the Petitioner due to imposition of the Penalty vide Penalty Order dated __.04.2019 [Annexure : P-4];

(viii) direct Respondent No.4 to grant Increment to the Petitioner on 01.07.2019;

(ix) consequently refix the Pension of the Petitioner;

(x) quash and set aside Disagreement Note dated __.11.2018 [Annexure : P-5] as being bad and non-est in law;

(xi) direct that the Major Penalty Charge Sheet dated 22.12.2015 [Annexure : P-6] has lapsed;

(xii) direct Respondent to pay compound interest @ 18% per annum, compounded monthly, on all monies that is payable to the Petitioner;

(xiii) allow exemplary costs of the present Writ Petition to the Petitioner against the Respondents; and

(xiv) pass such other and further order/(s) as may be deemed just and appropriate in the facts, circumstances and premises of the present case.”

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the respondent No.4 Institute namely the National Institute for the Empowerment of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities (‘NIEPD’, for short) on January 08, 1990. On November 20, 2014, he was suspended. On February 10, 2015, his suspension was extended. The suspension was again extended on August 06, 2015, November 09, 2015 respectively. While under suspension, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on December 22, 2015. The suspension was finally revoked on May 30, 2016.

3. Pursuant to the charge sheet, as referred to above, the inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer, wherein the petitioner was not found guilty. The Disciplinary Authority (‘DA’, for short) after considering the inquiry report, gave a disagreement note on the inquiry report to the petitioner in November 2018. The petitioner submitted his response to the disagreement note. In April 2019, a penalty order was passed by the Authority under the signatures of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India (‘GOI’, for short), whereby the pay of the petitioner was reduced from Rs.1,51,400/- to Rs.1,47,000/- for a period of one year with immediate effect, with a further direction that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.

4. The submission of Mr. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty is that the order of revocation of suspension dated May 30, 2016, does not specify as to how the period of suspension i.e., November 20, 2014, to May 30, 2016, has to be treated. According to him, the law is well settled that the order regarding the treatment of period of suspension has to be passed simultaneously with the order of revocation of suspension, and in any case, there should not be a gap of more than six months between the two incidents. In case, the ord