Harbans Lal, J. - (1.) According to the admitted facts, the petitioner joined service as a Sectional Officer in the Development and Panchayat Department of Punjab Government in' Nov. 19. 1963 He was placed under suspension with effect from Feb. 17, 1970, and a charge-sheet was served on him. After enquiry, he was removed from service on Feb. 8, 1978. The order of removal was challenged by the petitioner through a Civil Writ Petition vide Civil Writ Petition No. 1167 of 1974, which was allowed to April 24, 1978 and it was held that the petitioner had been prejudiced in his defence as a copy of the enquiry report had not been furnished to him. However, while quashing the order of removal, it was directed that a fresh show cause notice could be issued to the petitioner regarding the proposed penalty and then action could be taken in accordance with law After the order of the High Court in the said writ petition, the petitioner was reinstated with effect from Sept. 20, 1978, and in pursuance thereof, he continued to perform his duties as a Sectional Officer III Sept. 11, 1979, when the impugned order (Annexure P. 1) was passed vide which he was again suspended with effect from Feb. 8, 1978. that is, the date when his services had been terminated by the punishing authority in the first instance. 2. The case of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had been reinstated on Sept. 20, 1978, in pursuance of which he had been performing his duties till Sept. 11, 1979, rule 4(4) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter called the Rules) could not be invoked for the purpose of suspending the petitioner with retrospective effect from the date of the original order of removal. This contention has been strongly contested by Mr. Wasu, the learned counsel for the State. The said rule Is re-produced below:-, "Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government employee is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a Court of law and the punishing authority, on a consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold a further enquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the Government employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the appointing authority from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders". A close perusal of the same makes it evident that after the order of removal is quashed by the Court and the punishing authority decides to continue the enquiry proceedings, the delinquent employee is deemed to be under suspension from the date of the original order of removal. Obviously, it presupposes that the? punishing authority will apply its mind immediately after the order of removal is quashed, and as soon as fresh order of enquiry in this regard is passed, the employee is to be deemed to be under suspension from the date of his removal from service. However, in the present case after the punishing authority decided to reinstate the petitioner, necessary order of reinstatement was passed on Sept. 20, 1978 As this order was passed after about five months from the order of the High Court quashing the order of removal, it is quite reasonable to infer that the punishing authority had applied its mind before the order of reinstatement was passed In pursuance of this order, the petitioner was allowed to perform is cuties as a Sectional Officer for almost one year. Evidently, he was entitled to the full salary during this period after the order of reinstatement had been passed The impugned order, in these circumstances, is a fresh order regarding his suspension and cannot be treated as an order under rule 4(4) of the Rules. The said rule does not contemplate the passing of an order of reinstatement in the first instance and subsequent thereto the passing of fresh order of suspension because under the said rule, no fresh order of suspension is contemplated and the employee concerned has to be deemed to be under suspension after the order of removal is quashed Any other interpretation as contended by the learned State Counsel, will Result in untenable situations. If in the present case, the employee is to be considered as under suspension from the previous date, that is, from the date of the order of removal (February 8, 1978. he will not be entitled to any salary from this date up to Sept. 11, 1979, though he was allowed to perform his duties with effect from Sept. 20, 1978 Ill Sept. 10, 1979. As he performed his duties as a regular employee after the order of reinstatement, it will be quite illegal for the department to get the salary already paid to him refunded or to refuse him the salary, if any, which has not been already paid to him. This cannot possibly be the intention underlying rule 4(4) of the Rules
(2.) In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and it is held that the petitioner Will not be considered to be under suspension prior to the date of the impugned order, that is, Sept. 11, 1979. There will, however, be no order as to costs.;