M.R.MALLICK, J. - (1.) The applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 22.5.1981 has moved the High Court at Calcutta under the writ jurisdiction. The facts which has given rise to this writ petition are as follows: A departmental proceeding was started against the present applicant and he was suspended with effect from 8.9.74 and the removal order was passed on 31.1.75, but the General Manager as the reviewing authority has in terms of the representation made by the applicant modified the major penalty of removal from service to a minor penalty of withholding the annual increment for the period of 3 years (non -cumulative) by the order dated 31.8.80. It is also contended that thereafter a notice was issued upon him as to whether he would like to convert the suspension period as well as intervening period from the date of removal from service to the date of reinstatement as leave due. The applicant made representation against the said proposal. However, by the impugned order the respondents have directed that the period of suspension from 8.9.74 to 31.1.75 may be treated as suspension, but the suspension period will be counted as qualifying service for retirement benefit. As regards intervening period from the date of removal from service to the date of reinstatement i.e. 1.2.75 to 13.6.80 it has been ordered that the same shall be treated as leave due.
(2.) Being aggrieved by that order the petitioner has filed writ petition and the same has been transferred before this Tribunal for disposal. No affidavit -in -opposition bas been filed in the High Court nor any reply has been filed before this Tribunal. Mr. Majumder, counsel for the respondents, took time yesterday. On his prayer the matter was adjourned till today. Even then be is not present to contest this application.
(3.) On considering the submissions of Mr. Ghosh, counsel for the applicant, we are satisfied that so far as the period of suspension is concerned it is now well settled that when a major penalty is reduced to minor penalty by the appellate authority or that the reviewing authority, the period of suspension cannot be treated as period of suspension but must have to be treated as period of duty. Therefore the order directing that the said period from 8.9.74 to 31.1.75 shall be treated as suspension is not valid and proper one and it should be quashed and the said period shall be treated as on duty by the respondent authority.;