The court emphasized the need for fair and non-discriminatory treatment of employees in disciplinary proceedings and the regularization of suspension periods following exoneration.

Govind Mathur, J.-The petitioner preferred the present writ petition giving challenge to the order dated 25.08.1993 passed by the appointing authority placing him under suspension. After filing of the writ petition by an order dated 20.07.1994 the respondents revoked the suspension of the petitioner on getting him exonerated from the allegations of misconduct, However, the decision with regard to the period of suspension pertaining to the petitioner was deferred till disposal of some other disciplinary proceedings. The contention of Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was placed under suspension on the count of disciplinary proceedings which ultimately culminated into his exoneration, accordingly, the respondents are required to take decision for the period of suspension on basis of the decision of the disciplinary proceedings concerned.

2. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the petitioner was convicted by a Court of competent jurisdiction for the charges under Prevention of Corruption Act, therefore, he was placed under suspension.

3. Heard Counsel for the parties,

4. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner was placed under suspension due to conviction is not substantiated by the proofs. A proof cannot be supplemented by pleadings. The petitioner was placed under suspension at first instance by an order dated 26.04.1993. The aforesaid order was revoked by the respondents by an order dated 22.07.1993. The order of revocation was superceded by another order dated 25.08.1993. The order dated 25.08.1993 stood revoked by the order dated 20.07.1994. The order dated 20.07.1994 also refers exoneration of the petitioner from the charges, subject matter of an inquiry. In view of the facts stated above it is clear that the petitioner was not placed under suspension due to his conviction but was placed under suspension during disciplinary proceedings. Once the disciplinary proceedings reached to its logical consequence and the petitioner was exonerated then there was no just and valid reason for not deciding the case of the petitioner with regard to regularization of the period in which the petitioner was facing suspension. The petitioner and one other employee Sh. Prem Singh both were placed under suspension during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings for similar nature of misconduct. The respondents while exonerating Sh. Prem Singh by the order dated 20.07.1994, allowed him all benefits for the period he remained under suspension but no such decision is taken with regard to the petitioner. The act of the respondents is certainly discriminatory. The case of the petitioner is also required to be dealt with at par with the case of Sh. Prem Singh.

5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioners period of suspension i.e., from 26.04.1993 to 20.07.1994 at par with the case of Sh. Prem Singh and the same be treated as part of regular duty. The petitioner shall be entitled for full salary for the period referred above. No order as to cost.