STATE OF U.P.AND OTHERS Vs. TRIBHUAN NATH KHARE AND ANOTHER
LAWS(ALL)-2010-7-346
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (AT: LUCKNOW)
Decided on July 03,2010

STATE OF U.P. Appellant
VERSUS
Tribhuan Nath Khare Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This writ petition has been filed to assail the judgment and order dated 22.12.2009 passed in Claim Petition no. 1455 of 2008 by State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, allowing the claim petition of respondent no. 1 while holding that he would be entitled to get full salary for the suspension period except the subsistence allowance already paid to him. It appears from the narration of facts that respondent no. 1 joined as Junior Engineer in Irrigation Department on 15.2.1972. He was later promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the office of Superintending Engineer, VI Circle, Irrigation Works, Lucknow. Vide order dated 26.8.2005, he was assigned the duty to assist one Sri V. K. Singh, Executive Engineer. It appears that on 9.5.2005 respondent no. 1 was found absent from duty by the Minister concerned and, thus, placed under suspension. He was issued a charge-sheet on 5.1.2006, which he replied on 27.1.2006. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 25.4.2006 was issued. Respondent no. 1 submitted a reply to the show-cause notice on 23.5.2006 wherein he pleaded not guilty. However, after a gap of one and a half years he was punished with censure vide order dated 11.1.2008, which he challenged by way of claim petition before the Tribunal. Thereafter, another notice dated 15.2.2008 was issued to show cause as to why his claim for salary of the suspension period, be not denied, which he replied on 25.2.2008. However, vide the order dated 10.9.2008 respondent no. 1 was deprived of the salary for suspension period. In this background, on due consideration of pleadings of claim petition, the Tribunal allowed it by passing the impugned order.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
(3.) Learned counsel for petitioners-State submitted that respondent no. 1 was absent from duty, therefore, he was not entitled to get full salary for the suspension period. Learned counsel also submitted that it is not a case of not holding departmental enquiry, but the enquiry report was submitted without a regular inquiry and only after receiving a reply to the charge-sheet.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.