M T JIJY THOMAS Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN PATTOM P O TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board. THE petitioner was chargesheeted by the police along with another employee, for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code. In view of the criminal case charged against the petitioner, the petitioner was suspended from service. Later on, even before the conclusion of the criminal case, the petitioner was reinstated in service. Ultimately, by Ext.P3 judgment, the criminal court acquitted the petitioner holding that he had no involvement in the alleged acceptance of illegal gratification for obtaining undue pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means and without any public interest and, therefore, he is entitled for an acquittal of the charges levelled against him, although the co-accused was convicted and punished. After Ext.P3 judgment, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 request for regularising the period of his suspension. By Ext.P5 order, the 3rd respondent directed that the period of suspension be treated as eligible leave or leave without allowances, which will not be counted for any other purposes. THE petitioner filed an appeal before the Chairman of the Board, which was rejected by Ext.P7 order. THE petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P5 and P7 orders. THE petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

(2.) THE petitioner raises two contentions. THE first is that before passing Ext.P5 order, the petitioner was not given a notice or an opportunity of hearing. THE second is that since the petitioner has been honourably acquitted in the criminal case, the suspension must be deemed to have been wholly unjustifiable and consequently, the petitioner is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period of suspension.

(3.) WHAT is applicable to the situation at hand is Rule 56B of Part I of KSR. As per the said Rule, when an officer, who has been suspended is reinstated, the authority competent to order his reinstatement has to pass a specific order regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the officer for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement. Sub-rule (5) thereof provides that if the competent authority decides to determine only a portion of the salary and allowances as due to the officer, that quantum payable to the officer has to be decided after giving notice to the officer. That being so, insofar as the effect of Ext.P5 order is to deny all service benefits during the period of suspension to the petitioner, the petitioner should have been given a notice and an opportunity of being heard before passing Ext.P5 order. On that ground, Exts.P5 and P7 orders are liable to be quashed. In view of that finding, I am inclined to direct the 3rd respondent to reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. In that view, I am not inclined to go into the other contention raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. But, while passing fresh orders, the 3rd respondent shall enter a specific finding as to whether the suspension was wholly justified and whether there are sufficient grounds to deny any portion of the pay and allowances due to the petitioner for the period of suspension. Orders as directed above shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.