U.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner was suspended in contemplation of an enquiry. However, he was reinstated with effect from 9.5.1985. Ultimately in the enquiry, the petitioner was found not guilty of the charges and he was reinstated with effect from the date of suspension. The respondents by order dated 28.7.1994 sought to recover certain amount from the gratuity payable to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner during the period of suspension did not remain present at the station, therefore, the said period having been treated as leave without pay, the amount paid on account of subsistence allowance was sought to be deducted on the amount payable on account of gratuity. By another order dated 4.7.1995, the said amount was sought to be deducted from the gratuity payable to the petitioner. These two orders have been challenged in this writ petition.
(2.) Mr. Ashok Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the petitioner has been reinstated after he was found not guilty of the charges in the enquiry, there is no scope for the respondents to deduct any amount from the gratuity payable to the petitioner.
(3.) Mr. O. P. Singh, learned counsel for respondents had relied on the statements made in paragraphs 6, 8, 14 and 16 of the counter-affidavit and contended that the amount was rightly adjusted against the gratuity payable to the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner was bound to remain present in the station during the period of suspension but he had absented from the place of his attachment for a total period of 1412 days. Therefore, he was treated as on leave without pay during the said period. By order dated 16.3.1992 the petitioner was required to submit either medical certificate or apply for sanction of leave. Since the petitioner could not fulfil the same, therefore, this period was treated as leave without pay by order dated 16.3.1992 which is Annexure CA-1 to the counter-affidavit. Mr. O. P. Singh learned counsel for respondents submits that the order contained in Annexure CA-1 to the counter-affidavit having not been challenged, the petitioner cannot claim any relief in this writ petition. According to him. the suspended employee is supposed to remain at the attached station and if he is absent in that event the same shall be treated as spent on leave and as such it is to be so decided. On these grounds, the writ petition should be dismissed.;