B.N.BANERJEE, J. - (1.) AT all material times, the petitioner was employed as the divisional personnel inspector under the Eastern Railway. He was also general secretary of the Eastern Railway -men's Union. On the eve of a general strike, the petitioner was taken in custody under the Preventive Detention Act and was detained in the Dum Dum Central Jail from 11 July to 22 July 1960. He was released under the order of the Government of West Bengal on 22 July 1960.
(2.) WHILE in preventive custody, the petitioner and also 41 other persons were placed under suspension for having participated in an Illegal strike. The order of suspension bears the date 14 July 1960, and the material portion from the order is set out below: The following staff who are on illegal strike with effect; from 12 July 1980 are hereby placed undersuspension with immediate effect. The staff will be paid the usual subsistence allowance as on half average pay and usual allowances thereon. Under the Railway Fundamental Rules (see appendix XXXI, Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. II, at p. 228) the effect of detention in preventive custody causes automatic suspension from service. The material portion of the said rule is Bet out below : - III. Committals to prison. -(1) A railway servant against whom proceedings have been taken either for his arrest for debt or on a criminal charge or who is detained under any law providing for preventive detention, should be considered as under suspension for any period during which he is detained in custody or is undergoing imprisonment and not allowed to draw any pay or allowances (other than any subsistence allowance...) for such periods until the termination of the proceedings taken against him or until be is released from detention and allowed to rejoin duty, as the case may be.
(3.) ON or about 7 September 1960, the respondent Divisional Superintendent, realized that by the order dated 14 July 1980, the petitioner was being put under double suspension, firstly, under automatic suspension while in preventive custody (that is to say, the period from 11 July to 22 July 1960) and, secondly, under suspension from 14 July 1960, under the order aforementioned. He, therefore, tried to remedy the situation by making the order, dated 14 July 1960, effective from after the petitioner's release from detention. A material portion from the order is set out below: As R.C. Chakravarti, divisional personnel inspector, Howrah, was detained under Preventive Detention Act with effect from 12 July 1960 he should be considered as under suspension with effect from the same date in terms of Para. III of appendix XXXI, Rule 11. The office order of even number dated 14 July 1960 placing him under suspension shall be deemed to have effect immediately cm his release from the said detention. This is in partial supersession of office order of even number dated 14 July 1960 so far R.C. Chakravarty is concerned. ;