- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh is directed against judgment dated April 9, 1997 of Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench). The impugned order of the High Court was passed in writ Petition filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh aggrieved by the order dated August 7, 1985 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, by which the claim petition filed by the respondent Ajit Singh was allowed and the order of punishment dated February 9, 1982, passed by the Director of Agriculture against him was quashed. High Court held that the Tribunal was wrong in quashing the order of punishment dated February 9, 1982. However, it held that the respondent was entitled to full salary for whole of the period for which he was treated to be under suspension, i.e., from September 14, 1962 to October 31, 1975. High Court maintained the order of recovery of Rs. 9928/- passed by the disciplinary authority.
(3.) The respondent was an S.A.S. Group II service officer in the Agricultural Department of the State. At the relevant time he was posted at Burhana Seed Store, District Muzaffarnagar. On a charge of misappropriation he was suspended from service and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The respondent was also tried in a criminal Court for having committed the offence of misappropriation of Government funds. In contemplation of initiation of disciplinary proceedings the respondent was suspended on September 14, 1962. Thereafter, he was served with articles of charges. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings the respondent was convicted by the criminal Court and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-. On account of the conviction of the respondent he was dismissed from service by order dated February 26, 1969. Against his conviction and sentence respondent appealed to the High Court, which set aside the conviction and sentence by giving him benefit of doubt by order dated July 17, 1970. On account of his acquittal the dismissal order, passed against him, was revoked and it was provided that he shall nevertheless continue to be under suspension from February 25, 1969 and that he would be paid subsistence allowance as admissible under the rules. On a representation made by the respondent he was reinstated in service by order dated October 31, 1975, which order was passed in continuation of the earlier order dated November 27, 1970. In this later order it was also provided that respondent was being reinstated without affecting his case and that a separate order would be passed against the respondent regarding imposition of punishment upon him. Meanwhile the respondent approached the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal claiming that he was entitled to full salary and other benefits during the period he was under suspension. He also claimed that he was entitled to promotion from the date when his juniors were so promoted. While the matter was pending in the Tribunal the disciplinary authority by order dated February 3, 1982, passed following order of punishment on the respondent:- "(i) Shri Ajit Singh should not be paid anything more than subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. (ii) The period of suspension of Shri Singh should be computed for the purpose of pension. (iii) Recovery of Rs. 9928.00 (Rupees Nine thousand nine hundred and twenty eight) concerning the loss due to following charges be made every month from the pay and security of Shri Singh as per law." This order, it would appear, was also challenged by the respondent before the Tribunal in his petition already pending there. The Tribunal by order dated August 7, 1985 allowed the claim petition of the respondent and quashed the punishment order. It also held that the respondent was entitled to full salary and other benefits during the period of his suspension and that he was also entitled for promotion. This order of Tribunal, however, was challenged by the State of Uttar Pradesh by filing a writ petition in the High Court, which was partly allowed by the impugned order.;