The court emphasized the need for conclusive evidence to support the conversion of suspension period into irregular service and the withdrawal of salary.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the original petitioner to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 09.12.2020 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.9350/2020. Briefly stated facts are that the petitioner was discharging his duties as a Lecturer in the Government Polytechnic College. He was placed under suspension by an order dated 08.09.2016 on the basis of sanction of prosecution granted against him for offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption act and Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 of IPC. He challenged the order of sanction of prosecution by filing a separate writ petion No.11271/2016. On 19.10.2016 the learned Single Judge stayed the order of sanction of prosecution.

2. We are informed that such stay continues. according to the counsel for the petitioner and on account of this development though the order of the suspension was served on the petitioner, he was not relieved from duty. Subsequently by an order dated 11.08.2020 he was relived from duty which he has challenged in the present writ petition. The writ petition came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge in following terms:-

'I have considered the submissions as above.

The Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special appeal Writ No.1111/2019 State of Rajasthan and Ors. versus Manvendra Singh decided on 04.02.2020 has passed the following order:-

'In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent of revocation of suspension order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the District Superintendent of Police, District Sawai Madhopur to consider the application of the respondent for revocation of suspension order afresh in accordance with law as discussed above. The entire exercise for disposal of the application seeking revocation of suspension order shall be concluded within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.'

3. Keeping in view of the above, the petitioner would be free to take up the remedy of seeking revocation of suspension order under Rule 13 (5) of the CCa Rules or to file appeal under Section 22 of the CCa Rules of 1958.

4. as regards the petitioner's submission that he continued to perform duties up to 11.8.2020, this Court notices that suspension order was passed on 8.9.2016 and the same was sent to the Director, Technical Education Department, Jodhpur, for getting his attendance mark and for passing appropriate orders, however, a copy of this suspension order was also sent to the petitioner. In view of the order dated 8.9.2016 having been passed duly, the petitioner would be deem to have been suspended on 8.9.2016 and any service rendered by him from 8.9.2016 up to 11.8.2020 shall be treated as irregular and he will be continued to be treated as under suspension. Salary drawn by the petitioner for this period shall have to be accordingly recovered and appropriate action also requires to be taken against the concerned authorities who did not get the suspension order implemented in spite of the DoP having issued it on 8.9.2016 and having sent to the concerned Department. Leaving it open for the DoP to take appropriate actions against the concerned officers, it is observed that if the petitioner submits a representation/appeal under Section 13(5) or under Rule 22 respectively, the DoP will independently examine the same and pass appropriate orders. In light of the aforesaid judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan and Ors. versus Manvendra Singh (supra) passed by the Division Bench, the writ petition and the stay application stand disposed of accordingly. In view of above, interim order passed by the Court also stand vacated.'

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record we would split this appeal in two parts. So far as the direction for treating the suspension period between 08.09.2016 to 11.08.2020 is concerned, the same needs to be set aside. There is