HARI SWARUP, J. - (1.) This petition has been filed against the order of the Railway Board passed under Rule 2044 contained in Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume II. A charge-sheet was given to the petitioner and disciplinary proceedings were commenced against him. The petitioner was also placed under suspension on 28-1-1967. The proceedings continued till the stage of the issue of the show cause notice. By that time the petitioner had become mentally unfit to show cause and the proceedings remained in abeyance. The suspension order was ultimately withdrawn on 1-10-1971. The petitioner was on the same date compulsory retired from service. A notice was also given to the petitioner in respect of the payment of salary for the period of suspension for determining the amount under Rule 2044. The petitioner submitted his explanation and after the consideration of the petitioner's representation the Railway Board held that the period of absence from duty would not be treated as a period spent on duty and directed that for the period the petitioner was under suspension he would be given 60% of the pay and allowances as admissible to him immediately prior to the date of suspension. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by this order filed the present writ petition.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after the disciplinary proceedings had finally come to a lapse by the retirement of the petitioner the same could not be used for determining if the petitioner's suspension way wholly unjustified or not. The learned counsel further urged that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner in connection with proceedings under Rule 2044 of the Railway Establishment Code was too vague to be treated as a sufficient notice to show cause. The third contention of the learned counsel is that the order ultimately passed fixing 60% of the pay and allowances as the amount payable to the petitioner for the period of suspension was bad as it gave no reasons. The learned counsel for the respondents has urged that none of the grounds raised by the petitioner has merit. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we are proceeding to decide the last question first. Rule 2044 of the Railway Establishment Code runs an tinder: "2044 (F. R. 54)Pay after re-instatement.(1) Where Railway servant who has been dismissed, removed, compulsory retired or suspended is reinstated, the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the railway servant for the period of his absence from duty ; and (b) whether or not the said period shall be" treated as a period spent on duty. (2) Where the authority mentioned in sub-rule (1) is of the opinion ; that the railway servant has been fully exonerated or, in the case of suspension, that it was wholly unjustified, the railway servant shall be given the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed, compulsory retired or suspended as the case may be, (3) In other cases, the railway servant shall be given such proportion of such pay and allowances as such competent authority may prescribe. Provided that the payment of allowances under clause (2) or (3) shall be subject to all other conditions under which such allowances are admissible - Provided further that such proportion of such pay and allowances shall not be less than the subsistence and other allowances admissible under Rule 2043 (F.R. 53). (4) In a case falling under clause (2) the period of absence from duty shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. (5) In a case falling under clause (3) the period of absence from duty j shall not be treated as a period spent on duty, unless such competent I authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified ! purpose. Provided that if the Railway servant so desires, such authority may j direct that the period of absence from duty shall be converted into leave of ! any kind due and admissible to the Railway servant.''
(3.) The matter to be determined by the authority under this rule is, firstly, about I the justification or otherwise of the suspension of the employee who is reinstated. The other question to be determined is about the quantum of pay and allowances which the employee may be entitled to receive for the period of suspension. The determination also needs a determination whether the period of suspension shall be treated as a period spent on duty or not. The consequences of the order are to reduce the amount which an employee may get if the finding is to the effect that the suspension was wholly unjustified or that the period could be treated as a period spent on duty. This has, undoubtedly, a civil consequence. The determination has got to be based on objective facts. Rule 2044 does not contemplate subjective determination or finding by the competent authority. If an objective determination is required to be made and the final order has to be based on determination of such facts the order has got to be of a quasi judicial nature. The order must, therefore, indicate the reasons for the decision. The order must indicate the facts found by the competent authority from which he draws the inference that it could not be possible or reasonable to treat the period of suspension as the period spent on duty or to arrive at a finding that the suspension was not wholly unjustified. The order must, therefore, contain reasons for the decision.;