The main legal point established is that when an employee is exonerated or charges are withdrawn, the suspension period should be treated as duty period, as per Regulation 7.3(2)(4) of the Main Service Regulations, 1972.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 7.5.2003 (P-4), passed by respondent No. 3, namely, the Chief Engineer/Operations (Central Zone), Punjab State Electricity Board, Ludhiana. The period of suspension of the petitioner has been treated as leave of the kind due instead of treating the same as period spent on duty. A further prayer has also been made for setting aside the order dated 20.1.2005 (P-6), rejecting the appeal of the petitioner by the appellate authority (Deputy Secretary of the Board).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who has been working on the post of Junior Engineer, was placed under suspension on 11.4.2002(P-2) and thereafter he was served with a charge sheet, dated 29.4.2002 (P-l). He filed his reply contesting the charges levelled against him. The competent authority after considering the reply filed by the petitioner passed an order on 7.3.2003 and it is claimed that the charge sheet was dropped. On 7.5.2003, an order was passed by respondent No. 3 treating the suspension period of the petitioner as leave of the kind due (P-4). The appellate authority rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner, vide order dated 20.1.2005 (P-6) thereby upholding the order of respondent No. 3, dated 7.5.2003 (P-4) treating the period of suspension of the petitioner as leave of the kind due instead of treating the same as duty period for all intent and purposes.

3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and pursuing the paper book with the assistance of their learned Counsel, we are of the view that the order dated 7.5.2003 (P-4) and also the appellate order dated 20.1.2005 (P-6), passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 2 respectively, are liable to be set aside. It would be appropriate to make a reference to the order dated 7.3.2003(P-3) dropping the charges against the petitioner and the same reads as under:

Officer Order No. 202 dated 7.3.03

Whereas Sh. Tota Singh, J.E. s/o Sh. Ujjagar Singh, while working in under Addl. Superintending Engineer/Operation, Agar Nagar Division (Khas), Ludhiana, Unit No. 1, Ludhiana. He was issued charge sheet vide this office letter No. C-264 dated 20.04.02 for the omissions/commissions committed by him.

Whereas reply of the employee (23.10.02) was considered by Chief Engineer/ Operation (Central), Ludhiana (Competent Authority) and after consideration, directions were made to file charge sheet issued to the employee having regard to his retirement.

Therefore, charge sheet No. C-264 dated 29.04.02 issued to Sh. Tota Singh, J.E., S/o Sh. Ujjagar Singh (Retd.) is hereby filed.

This is being issued with the approval of Chief Engineer/Operation (Central), Ludhiana.

4. A perusal of the aforementioned order shows that the charge sheet issued to the petitioner has been dropped for the reason that he has already retired. In other words, no 1 fault can be found with the petitioner or his conduct.

5. The question that requires consideration is whether in such a situation the whole period of suspension is required to be considered as period of leave of the kind due. The situation has been dealt with by Regulation 7.3 of the Main Service Regulations, 1972, Volume-I, Part-I (for brevity, the 1972 Regulations) and the same reads as under:

7.3(1) When a Board employee, who has been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended, is reinstated, or would have been reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension, the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order- (a) regarding the pay and allowance to be paid to the Board employee for the period of his absence from duty, or for the period of suspension ending with the date of his retirement on superannuation, as the case may be; and

(b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.

(2) Whether the authority mentioned in sub-regulation (1) is of opinion that the Boa