Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Ajit Singh and Anupinder Singh Grewal, JJ.
State of Rajasthan & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Dilip Kumar Dewani and Others - Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1255, 1337 and 1534 of 2014 with D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1, 15, 18 and 56 of 2015
Decided on : 03-02-2016
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Sake of Convenience – Facts are challenge has been made to the order of the Single Bench passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition whereby while allowing the writ petition, the appellants/respondents therein were directed to grant the benefit of second and third selection scale including the period of suspension as well as the revision of pay scale to the petitioner therein deeming him to be throughout in service –Arrears were directed to be paid with interest at the rate of 9% per annum – In the other cases, the Single Bench has directed the respondents/writ petitioners to be eligible for the grant of the annual grade increments even during the period of suspension which had been revoked –Held, It will be clear from what this Court has held in Union of India and Ors. v. that even in cases where acquittal in the criminal proceedings is on account of non-availability of evidence, the authorities concerned must be vested with the power to decide whether the employee at all deserves any salary for the intervening period, and if he does, the extent to which deserves it – In the aforesaid case, this Court has also held that this power is vested in the competent authority with a view to ensure that discipline in administration is not undermined and public interest is not jeopardised and it is not possible to lay down an inflexible rule that in every case where an employee is exonerated in the disciplinary/criminal proceedings he should be entitled to all salary during the period of suspension and the decision has to be taken by the competent authority on the facts and circumstances of each case – Appeals are allowed.
Anupinder Singh Grewal, J.
As these appeals raise a common question of law, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1255 of 2014. The challenge has been made to the order of the Single Bench dated 13.05.2014 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20270 of 2013 whereby while allowing the writ petition, the appellants/respondents therein were directed to grant the benefit of second and third selection scale including the period of suspension as well as the revision of pay scale to the petitioner therein deeming him to be throughout in service. The arrears were directed to be paid with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. In the other cases, the Single Bench has directed the respondents/writ petitioners to be eligible for the grant of the annual grade increments even during the period of suspension which had been revoked.
3. The respondent herein namely Dilip Kumar Dewani was suspended on 22.03.2004 due to his arrest for offences under sections 420, 468, 469, 471 and 120B IPC. Vide order dated 26.11.2012, his suspension was revoked subject to the outcome of pending criminal proceedings. In other appeals, similar details of the respondents/writ petitioners along with the date of suspension, reinstatement as well as the offences wherein they are facing trial as furnished by learned Additional Advocate General, are reproduced as under:
| S. No. | Case No. | Title | Date of Suspension | Date of Reinstatement | Offence u/s |
| 1 | SAW No.1337/14 | State vs. 1. Dharam Singh s/o Shri Munshi Singh (Constable) 2. Dharam Singh s/o Shri Ramswaroop (Constable) | 15.05.2006 (i) 15.03.2000 | 11.01.2011 (i) 24.04.2009 | |
| 2. | SAW No. 1534/14 | State vs. 1. Man Singh Hada (ASI) 2. Pawan Kumar Nagar (ASI) 3. Hansraj (ASI) 6. Om Prakesh (ASI) |
19.04.2008 |
07.06.2010 |
7, 13(1)D(2) PC Act 7, 13(1)D(2) PCA 7, 13(1)D(2) PCA 120B, 201 IPC 7, 13(1)D(2) PCA 7, 13(1)D(2) PC Act 120B IPC |
| 3. | SAW No. 15/2015 | State vs. Sanwar Mal (Head Constable) | 06.11.2016 | 25.02.2011 | 7, 13(1)D(2) PC Act |
| 4. | Saw No. 18 of 2015 | State vs. 1. Birbal Singh (Head Constable) 2. Vidhyadhar Sharma (ASI) |
|
|
|
| 5. | SAW No. 56 of 2015 | State vs. Brij Kishore Sharma (ASI) | (i)02.06.2006 | (i)30.04.2009 | 7, 13(1)D(2) PC Act |
4. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants has contended that in view of the provisions of Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, the respondents are not entitled for grant of annual grade increments and other benefits including selection grade during the period of suspension. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh Kanwar [(2014) 13 SCC 622].
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have contended that once the orders of suspension have been revoked and the orders of reinstatement passed, the respondents were entitled to all the benefits including the increments and selection scale during the period of suspension. In support of their submission, they have placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Anr. [2015(10) Scale 486] and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
