Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 41487 of 2010 Petitioner :- Kamla Shankar Choudhary Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- K. C. Sinha,Sunil Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C. Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.
Hon’ble Kashi Nath Pandey,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner retired as Soil Conservation Officer, Rai Bareilly in
the year 2004. He was placed under suspension on the allegations
of misconduct. A departmental enquiry was held against him. By
order dated 18th June, 2001 the petitioner was punished with
censure entry and recovery of Rs.14,867.18 from the salary. With
regard to period of his suspension and salary, the order passed by
the State Government provided for a separate consideration.
By order dated 22nd February, 2008 the State Government, after
considering the petitioner’s representation, after his retirement,
adjusted his entire period of suspension towards leave and treating
the period to be spent on duty, allowed him 3/4 salary with
allowances. The petitioner preferred a representation, which was
rejected on 11th February, 2009. It is contended that the petitioner
preferred an appeal, which may be decided by the State
Government, under Rule 11 of the U.P. Government Servant
(Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1991. Rule 11 provides for right to
appeal except in a case, where orders are passed by the Governor.
The appointing authority of the petitioner as Soil Conservation
Officer is State Government and thus no appeal is maintainable
under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1991. A revision under Rule 13 is
maintainable. In the present case, the order is passed by the State
Government and that the petitioner’s review petition has also been
dismissed. He does not have any further right except to approach
the State Public Services Tribunal at Lucknow or to file a writ
petition to be entertained by the High Court, if the order is without
jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice.
Be that as it may. The impugned order of punishment was passed
before his retirement on 18th June, 2001. The petitioner did not
challenge the order prior to his retirement in 2004, or even
thereafter. He is now aggrieved by the order by which the period
of his suspension has been regularised and he has been allowed
3/4th salary during the period. The order of punishment has
become final. The order by which he was allowed 3/4th pay does
not suffer from any illegality. The entire period has been treated to
be in service. The petitioner did not work during the period of
suspension. The State Government has been rather lenient with
him by allowing him 3/4th pay during the period of suspension
after the charges were established against him and he has been
punished with censure and recovery, and after giving him
opportunity to represent against the proposed deduction of the
entire amount. The petitioner was not fully exonerated of the
charges to claim entire salary of the period of suspension. His
request to treat the period of suspension between 17.6.1999 to
8.2.2000 could not be treated to be spent on medical leave, casual
leave. An employee punished after a departmental enquiry does
not have a right to apply to treat the period of his suspension to be
spent on medical or casual leave. The suspension order was stayed
by the High Court. The leave has to be granted to a public
servant strictly in accordance with the leave rules.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.7.2010
SP/