The main legal point established in the judgment is that an employee reinstated after suspension is entitled to full retiral dues and 100% suspension allowance as per the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order, direction and/or writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 24-5-2016 together with Order dated 9-5-2016, being illegal, arbitrary and against the Rules and against the principles of natural justice;

(B) That Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondents to pay full wages with 12% interest thereon from the date of suspension;

(C) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondents to pay full wages from 1-8-2014, the date from which the petitioner has resumed his duty vide letter dated 1-8-2014;

(D) Any other and such further relief as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice together with costs.

2. The short facts of the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed in the services of respondent no.2 on 01.09.1987 and has been working as Hostel Superintendent (Gruhpati). That upon criminal complaint filed by one Smt. Arpitaben d/o. Amritbhai Babubhai Rathod, the petitioner was suspended from the services. The respondent no.1 has addressed a letter on 03.09.2005 for approval of the suspension order and directed for payment of subsistence allowance. That the respondent has also filed Criminal Case No.3477 of 2005 before the concerned learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the charge-sheet came to be issued and the petitioner filed reply to the charge-sheet. The Inquiry Officer addressed a letter to the petitioner and the appointment of the Inquiry Officer which was objected by the original complainant on the ground that the matter was pending before the concerned Court and the complainant made representation to the Inquiry Officer raising objection about appointment of Inquiry Officer and conducting inquiry and, thereafter, the Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry. So far as the proceedings pending before the concerned Judicial Magistrate, First Class is concerned, Smt. Arpitaben filed pursis that there was some misunderstanding and she withdrew the complaint. The order came to be passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 17.07.2014 and subsequently, the order was passed on 25.07.2014 in Criminal Case No.3477 of 2005 exonerated the petitioner from all the charges. That respondent no.2 addressed a letter to respondent no.1 for cancellation of suspension order and reinstate the petitioner and, thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in service and he resumed his duty and since then he is working and still paid 75% wages. However, the Director of Social Welfare Department has rejected the same vide letter / order dated 24.05.2016 forwarding therewith a copy of the letter issued by the Deputy Secretary, Gandhinagar. Against the order dated 24.05.2016, the present petition is filed.

3. The respondent no.1 has filed affidavit-in-reply to the petition and respondent no.2 has also filed affidavit-in-reply to the petition.

4. Heard Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Nirali Sanda, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent no.1 and Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2.

5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner suspended in August, 2005 and paid only suspension allowance though he is reinstated in service in August 2014. He has submitted that the petitioner remained under suspension from 2005 till 01.08.2014 and the impugned action of the respondent that the petitioner was not paid full wages is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He has submitted that the respondents had not paid all retiral dues and more particularly the amount of suspension allowance is paid