Suspension periods do not count towards pension eligibility unless expressly declared by the competent authority, particularly when misconduct is established; this upholds disciplinary actions within public service.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Mahajan, J.

1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.03.2019 passed in W.P (C) 2408/2012 whereby the writ petition of the appellant seeking quashing of Memo dated 12.04.2004, order dated 17.05.2004 (passed by the Disciplinary Authority) and order dated 09.05.2011 (passed by the Appellate Authority) was dismissed.

2. The short question which arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the appellant who was awarded a major penalty of compulsory retirement after a full-dress departmental inquiry, is entitled to count the period from 06.11.1989 to 17.05.2004 i.e. the date of suspension till date of punishment, towards qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits?

3. To answer the above question, the brief facts which need to be noted are that the appellant was appointed as a Stenographer, Gr. III, in the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) on 25.10.1980 and while working in that capacity, he was charge-sheeted for assaulting Dr K.K. Sidh, Deputy Director, ICSSR, in the office premises on 06.11.1989. The appellant submitted his written statement explaining his actions but at the same time he admitted to having slapped Dr K.K. Sidh. The Disciplinary Authority finding the explanation of the appellant to be unsatisfactory decided to hold an inquiry and constituted an Inquiry Committee. The appellant participated in the inquiry proceedings which culminated in a report which found the appellant guilty of the charges framed against him.

4. The Appointing-cum-Disciplinary Authority, after examining the report of the inquiry committee, did not find any justified reason to differ from the findings recorded by the Inquiry Committee and vide order dated 21.08.1991 imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement w.e.f. the date of the order.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the appellant impugned the same by way of W.P. (C) 2872/1996 filed in this court on the premise that the Inquiry Report was not furnished to the appellant which violated the principles of natural justice as well as the provisions of ICSSR regulations. The learned Single Judge of this court vide order dated 23.09.2002 disposed-of the writ petition observing as under:

"...Learned counsel for the respondent has not denied that the inquiry report of the inquiry was not given to the petitioner as has been contended by the petitioner in para (G) of the writ petition. In view of the admitted facts of the case, the order of termination is passed without applying the safeguards of service regulations as well as it has violated the principle of giving reasonable opportunity to the charge officer, thereby making the order of termination illegal.

I quash the order dated 6.11.1989 and 21.8.1991. The petitioner will be re-instated in service with all consequential benefits.

However, I grant liberty to the respondent to hold fresh inquiry, if they wish to do so, in accordance with law. Petition stands disposed of."

6. Against the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the employer i.e. respondents 2 & 3 preferred LPA 818/2002. The Division Bench of this court by its judgment dated 14.10.2003 modified the order of the learned Single Judge, the operative part of which reads thus:

"...We accordingly concur w