R.A. Jahagirdar, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has been serving under the Government of Maharashtra as a police Sub -Inspector and he was so serving on 4th June. 1978 on which date an order of suspension was passed against him. That order of suspension was passed with effect from the date of the receipt of the said order. It was alleged that he was involved in a criminal case of Ajara Police Station. In that case the petitioner was charged with offences punishable under sections 341, 323 and 504 all read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The record before us shows that the suspension order was received by the petitioner on 9th June. 1978 from which date, therefore he must be deemed to have been placed under suspension.
(2.) THE petitioner was ultimately prosecuted in Criminal Case No. 223 of 1980 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Gadhinglaj in Kolhapur District. The learned Magistrate, by his judgment and order dated 25th May 1982 acquitted the petitioner of all the offences with which he had been charged. Pursuant to this order of acquittal, the Superintendent of Police of Kolhapur by his order dated 29th May. 1982 reinstated the petitioner in service with effect from the, date of the receipt of the order of reinstatement. The superintendent "of Police added the following in his order dated 29th May 1982: "His period of suspension is treated as on duty." Pursuant to this order of reinstatement and pursuant to the order stating that his period of suspension should be treated as period on duty, the petitioner's annual increments were also fixed by a subsequent order by the same authority. Since the amount that would be payable to the petitioner as a result of this order of reinstatement and also the order of treating his period of suspension as period on duty exceeded Rs, 2.000 the papers were submitted to the Government for approval under Rule 73 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Joining Time, Foreign Service and Payments During Suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules. 1981 hereinafter referred to as "the 1981 Rules" for brevity's sake.
(3.) IT is at this stage that the Government of Maharashtra issued a show cause notice on 28th April. 1983 requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the period of suspension should not be treated as such in other words, as to why his period of suspension should not be treated as period of suspension. The petitioner replied to this show cause notice pointing out that there was no warrant for interfering with the order which has already been passed by the Competent Authority under Rule 72(3) of the 1981 Rules. Thereafter the Government has passed the impugned order on 16th December. 1983 to the effect that it has decided not to treat the period of suspension of the petitioner as period spent on duty for any purpose except for pension and that the petitioner should be paid for that, period pay and allowances as admissible under Rule 68. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.;