The central legal point established is the requirement for the competent authority to pass specific orders regarding the treatment of suspension period and entitlement to full pay and allowances in accordance with the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations 1956.

B.S. Walia, J.

1. Prayer in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir is for quashing of Order No. 15 of 2010, dated January 4, 2010 i.e. Annexure B passed by Respondent No. 4 whereby the period w.e.f. August 17, 1998 to September 15, 1998 was treated as earned leave and period from September 16, 1998 to August 6, 2002 was treated as leave without pay as also Order No. 391 of 2012, dated October 3, 2012 i.e. Annexure F passed by Respondent No. 2 dismissing 2nd appeal filed against order dated 01.06.2011 i.e. Annexure C passed by Respondent No. 3 dismissing appeal against order Annexure B dated January 4, 2010 passed by Respondent No. 4. Facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner who was a constable, proceeded on 20 days earned leave duly sanctioned by the competent authority on August 17, 1998 and was to rejoin duty on September 7, 1998 but could not do sc on account of his arrest along with eight other accused by the police in a murder case registered under FIR No. 107/93 u/s. 302 RPC, dated September 3, 1998 at Police Station Reasi.

2. That on arrest, the petitioner was placed under suspension by SDPO City West Jammu vide Order No. 54/98, dated October 26, 1998.

3. That during the pendency of the criminal trial in case titled as State of J&K v. Gulshan Kumar & Ors., the petitioner was released on bail vide order dated August 7, 2002 but continued to remain under suspension till his acquittal by the Ld. Session Judge vide judgment Annexure A, dated August 8, 2008.

4. That on acquittal in the murder case, the petitioner vide Order No. 1669 of 2009, was reinstated in service by Respondent No. 4 on September 8, 2009.

5. That a departmental enquiry was also initiated against the petitioner which was entrusted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Jammu. After conduct of enquiry, the enquiry officer recommended exoneration of the petitioner of the charges levelled against him in view of his acquittal in the criminal case as also for treating the period of absence w.e.f. August 17, 1998 to September 15, 1998 as on leave, period with effect from September 16, 1998 to August 6, 2002 as dies non and period w.e.f. August 7, 2002 to October 10, 2009 as on duty. The enquiry officer also recommended that the monthly allowance if any received by the petitioner during the period he remained in custody with effect from September 16, 1998 to August 6, 2002 be recovered from the petitioners monthly salary in instalments.

6. That the recommendations of the enquiry officer were considered by Respondent No. 4 i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police Jammu who vide order Annexure B, dated January 4, 2010 while agreeing with the same ordered exoneration of the petitioner of the charges levelled against him and for treating the period w.e.f. August 17, 1998 to September 15, 1998 as on earned leave while the period w.e.f. September 16, 1998 to August 6, 2002 was directed to be treated as leave without pay. Period w.e.f. August 7, 2002 to October 10, 2009 was ordered to be treated as an duty.

7. That order Annexure B to the extent it directed the period w.e.f. September 16, 1998 to August 6, 2002 i.e. the period the petitioner remained injudicial custody under court orders as leave without pay, was challenged by the petitioner by way of statutory appeal before Respondent No. 3 on the ground that in view of his acquittal, he was in terms of Article 108-B read with Article 109 of the CSR (Civil Service Regulations) 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) entitled to full pay and allowances. The statutory appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by Respondent No. 3 vide order Annexure C, dated 01.06.2011 by upholding order Annexure B, dated January 4, 2010 passed by Respondent No. 4.

8. That the petitioner challenged order Annexure C, dated 01.06.2011 passed by Respondent No. 3 by way of 2nd appeal before Responde