##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:39143]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5/2015 CNR: RJHC020508342014 | URN: CW / 8U / 2015 Ram Pal Meena S/o Late Ganesh Meena, Bishansinghpura, Tehsil Amer, Jaipur, Class 3, Record Clerk, S.R. No. 140596, Branch Office, L.I.C. Jhotwara, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus

1. Life Insurance Corporation Of India Through Zonal Manager, Jeevan Bharti Tower II, 124, Cannat Circus, New Delhi.

2. Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No. 1, LIC-

Jeevan Prakash, Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur.

3. Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Jhotwara, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Rathore, Adv., Mr. Chandra Vikram Singh, Adv. &

Mr. Lokesh Dholpuria, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Puneet, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Judgment

REPORTABLE 25/09/2026

1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.02.2014 issued by the Senior Divisional Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority, whereby while treating the suspension period as period not spent on duty, he has been denied the remaining benefits of suspension period except subsistence allowance. Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 22.11.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been disposed of.

2. It is stated that the petitioner was initially appointed as Class-IV employee in the year 1994 in respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India. He was thereafter promoted in the year 2006 on the post of Clerk. While he was holding the post of Clerk on account of alleged involvement in the criminal case, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 24.08.2009. During suspension period, he was granted subsistence allowance.

3. It is stated that although, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the respondents, yet no departmental enquiry whatsoever was initiated by the respondent-Corporation, however, the petitioner was kept under suspension during the trial before the Competent Criminal Court.

4. It is further submitted that pursuant to the criminal case lodged against the petitioner, which has got nothing to do with the service related conduct of the petitioner, he was tried by the Competent Criminal Court, where statements of as many as 20 prosecution witnesses were recorded and more than 20 documents were exhibited by the prosecution in support of the charge against the petitioner. The defence also produced witnesses and after examining the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted the petitioner of the criminal charges on the ground that benefit of doubt was given to him due to failure of the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

5. After conclusion of criminal trial and judgment of acquittal, the suspension order was revoked vide order dated 16.01.2014. However, while revoking suspension, it was recorded that as regards, remaining benefits of suspension period a separate order shall be passed.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 29.01.2014, wherein powers under Rule 38 (a) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Rules, 1960 (for short 'the Rules of 1960') were exercised and the period of suspension was treated to be as period spent on duty, accordingly the petitioner was held entitled for full pay and allowances during the suspension period after adjusting the subsistence allowance.

7. Soon thereafter, without giving any notice to the petitioner, the earlier order dated 29.01.2014 was cancelled by the Senior Divisional Manager and instead thereof the order was passed under Rule 38 (b) of the Rules of 1960 on 12.02.2014, wherein it was recorded that although, the suspension period shall not be treated as break in service, yet petitioner shall not be granted remaining benefits of pay and allowances to the petitioner for the said period treating the same as period not spent on duty (absence period).

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner