JUDGEMENT
RITU BAHRI ,J. -
(1.)The petitioner is seeking quashing of the orders dated 10.06.2014 and 11.06.2014 (Annexures P -6 & P -7 respectively), vide which he has been denied salary, seniority, increments, leave, gratuity and
pension for the period during which he remained under suspension.
(2.)Ghamandi Lal -petitioner was appointed as Peon on 05.07.1990 and was promoted as Clerk in the month of January, 1996. He was further promoted as Auditor on 07.07.2005. Vide order dated
27.10.2005 (Annexure P -1), the petitioner was suspended. Thereafter, he was removed from service vide order dated 03.02.2009 (Annexure P -2) on the ground that he had been convicted under
Sections 406 and 498 -A IPC. Against his conviction, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a
criminal revision. Vide order dated 05.08.2009 (Annexure P -3), the conviction of the petitioner was
stayed during the pendency of the revision petition. However, despite the said order, he was not
reinstated in service. Thereafter, he filed CWP No.4348 of 2009 1 of 5 before this Court seeking
direction to the respondents to reinstate him on account of the order dated 05.08.2009 (Annexure
P -3). The said petition was disposed of by giving direction to the petitioner to file a fresh
representation before the respondent -authorities. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner filed a
representation, which was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 01.03.2010 (Annexure P -4).
Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner was allowed and his conviction under
Sections 406, 498 -A IPC and Sections 5 & 6 of the Prohibition of Dowry Act was quashed vide order
dated 23.04.2014 (Annexure P -5) passed by this Court. Vide order dated 10.06.2014 (Annexure P -6)
passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with a
condition that period of his removal from service will not be treated as duty period. Thereafter, the
Director, Local Audit, Haryana passed an order dated 11.06.2014 (Annexure P -7) to the effect that
the suspension period as well as the period of removal will not be treated as duty period and no
benefit of salary, seniority, increments, leave, gratuity and pension of the said period shall be
granted to the petitioner. Hence, this petition.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the controversy involved in this petition is squarely covered by a decision given by this Court in Sukhchain Singh Vs. State of Punjab, CWP No.16192 of
2010, decided on 18.03.213 (Annexure P -8).
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.