Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.


Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Others on 2 July, 2010
Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37792 of 2010

Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Abhishek Mishra,K. N. Mishra
Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C.

                                                     Court No. 18

         Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37792 of 2010.

                    Vinod Kumar Sharma
                            Versus
                   State of U.P. and others.




Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.

The facts on record of the present writ petition are as follows :
Petitioner, who is employed as Cadre Secretary of Sadhan
Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Nagina, District
Bijnore, was served with an order dated 31.01.2008
whereunder after completion of the departmental proceeding,
he was held liable for payment of Rs.1,35,894/- for the loss
caused. This order was challenged by the petitioner by
means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15640 of 2008 wherein
an interim order was granted on 01.05.2008 and the recovery
was stayed. The writ petition is pending and the stay order is
in operation. The petitioner was thereafter served with a
charge sheet on 13.07.2009. This charge sheet according to
the petitioner was bad as it was in respect of the same
charges which were subject matter of the order of
punishment dated 31.01.2008. He challenged the charge
sheet by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37206 of
2009. In the said writ petition an interim order has been
granted by this Court whereby the charge sheet has been
stayed. By means of this third writ petition, he seeks
quashing of the order dated 20.05.2010 whereunder he has
been temporarily reinstated on the post of Secretary pending
conclusion of the proceeding against the petitioner in terms of
the charge sheet which has been stayed by this Court.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that although he has
been reinstated, he has not been assigned any duties nor
has been permitted to work. In paragraph 19 it is stated that
even though the petitioner has been reinstated under orders
of the Secretary of the Society, he is still being paid
subsistence allowance and the Officiating Secretary is
continuing to exercise powers of the Secretary despite the
reinstatement of the petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the records of the present writ petition.
From the records of the present writ petition, this Court finds
that the petitioner was placed under suspension under
resolution of the District Administrative Committee as notified
on 26.05.2009. The petitioner was served with a charge
sheet in terms of the said resolution on 13.07.2009. The
petitioner, for the reasons best known to him, has either not
challenged the order of suspension dated 26.08.2009 or else
he challenged the said order in Civil Misc. Writ Petition 37206
of 2009, butn no interim order has been granted staying the
order of suspension. Since the Secretary/General Manager,
Zila Sahkari Bank has informed the petitioner under the
impugned order that the Administrative Committee in its
decision taken on 13.05.2010, as per the interim order of this
Court has decided to keep the order of suspension in
abeyance inasmuch as the enquiry cannot proceed because
of the stay of the charge sheet. The petitioner has
accordingly been reinstated with a direction that for the period
of suspension, he shall not be paid anything over and above
the subsistence allowance. However the period of
suspension can be treated to have been spent on duty.
This Court is of the considered opinion that the issue as to
whether an employee should be paid full salary or only
subsistence allowance for the period of suspension, has to be
adjudicated upon only after the departmental proceedings are
completed and at an interim stage, there cannot be a
direction for the payment of full salary for the period of
suspension. In the facts and circumstances of the case the
petitioner has got the enquiry proceedings stayed from this
Court because of the stay of the charge sheet, the District
Committee is legally justified in directing that the petitioner
shall not be entitled to anything over and above the
subsistence allowance for the suspension period. Suffice is to
record that such direction of the District Administrative
Committee shall be subject to the directions which may be
passed by the writ Court or to the orders which may be
passed by the disciplinary authority in accordance with the
Rules applicable after completion of the departmental
proceedings if permitted by this Court while deciding the Writ
Petition No. 37206 of 2009.

Consequently this Court finds no good ground to interfere
with the order dated 20.05.2010.

So far as the other relief prayed for qua non payment of
salary after his reinstatement is concerned, the petitioner may
approach the Branch Manager of the Bank for enforcing the
decision of the District Administrative Committee in letter and
spirit and for ensuring that the petitioner is permitted to
discharge his duties and is paid his salary regularly.
Accordingly the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty
to the petitioner to make a representation ventilating all his
grievances noticed above before the respondent no. 6 within
two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order.
On such a representation being made the respondent no. 6
shall call for the records and shall pass a reasoned speaking
order preferably within six weeks, thereafter.
Dated : 02.07.2010
VR/37792/10


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

16 queries in 0.119 seconds.