Muni Lal Verma, J. - (1.) In this writ petition moved by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, he seeks writs of certiorari and mandamus, for (a) quashing the order passed by the State of Punjab (Respondent No. 1) on March 12, 1962 (Annexure B, hereinafter called the impugned order,) directing that he would not be allowed anything more than what he had already received as subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, i. e., from Oct. 2, 1959 to March 12, 1962, and (b) directing the State of Punjab (Respondent No. 1) and the Chief Engineer Respondent No. 2] to consider his case for promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer, P. S. E., Class I Service, and to treat him promoted to the said post with effect from March 3, 1961, when Shri I. M. Mehta (Respondent No. 3) who was his immediate Junior, had been promoted.
(2.) His case, as put forth in the writ petition, was that he joined the service as temporary Engineer in the Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) in the scale of Rs. 250-20-750 in the year 1953 ana was appointed as Sub-Divisional Officer with effect from that date. Respondent 3 to 51, had joined the service subsequently and, as such, they were junior to him. In the year 1957, a departmental inquiry had been instituted against him and he was suspended with effect from Oct. 2, 1959. The said inquiry resulted in withholding of his one year's increment without cumulative effect and he was reinstated on March 12, 1962, by the impugned order, which contained two directions, (i) that he would not get anything more than what had been received by him as subsistence allowance for the period of suspension, and (ii) (the period of suspension) would not be treated a suspension duty except for purposes of pension. He made representations against the impugned order and it was amended by order dated Jan. 28, 1963 (Annexure D), whereby it was directed that the period of suspension would be treated as spent on duly for all purposes. As a consequence of the direction in the impugned order that he would not be allowed any thing more than what he had already received as subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, he had to suffer loss extending to Rs. 8,600. He made representations to Respondent No. 1, claiming the said amount, but the same were rejected. The last of the said representation was rejected in March, 1966. During the period of suspension, Respondents No. 3 to 51, who were junior to him (the petitioner, had been promoted as Executive Engineers, in the higher pay scale of Rs. 625-40-1250, Shri I. M. Mehta having been promoted to the said higher post on April 3, 1961. He (the petitioner) was denied pro notion for net less than four years after his reinstatement and it was in the year 1966 that he was promoted to the rank of Executive Engineer. Hence, he impeached the impugned order as illegal, void and unconstitutional on the grounds:- (1) That the order suspending him was illegal and arbitrary, and (2) that disallowance of the full pay and allowances to him for the period of suspension when the said period was treated as spent on duty for all purposes, was illegal and arbitrary and the same was void, because the same had been passed without his having been afforded any opportunity of hearing in that respect. He attacked the promotion of Respondent Nos. 3 to 51 of the higher rank of Executive Engineer as unjustified and illegal, because they were junior to him and that he was ignored for promotion to the said post without any justification. He swore affidavit, though short, in support of the averments made in the petition. The petition was contested and in opposition Shri K. Rajendran Nair, Deputy Secretary to Government. Punjab, P.W.D. (I.B.), filed an affidavit by way of written statement on behalf of the State of Punjab (respondent No. 1). The broad facts were not controverted. It was, however, stated that the petitioner was duly suspended during the departmental inquiry which resulted in withholding of one of his increments without cumulative effect and the impugned order directing that he would not get anything more than what he had already received in the form of subsistence allowance for the period of suspension was rightly passed, and that his case for promotion had been duly considered in 1962 as well as in 1963. and he was ignored when promotion was allowed to his juniors because of his unsatisfactory service record. The petitioner had put in affidavit by way of replication.
(3.) Shri R. L. Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner, assailed the impugned order with the contentions:- 1. that the order suspending him was itself illegal and arbitrary; 2. that the impugned order directing non-payment of full pay and allowances for the period of suspension amounted to double punishment inasmuch as one increment without cumulative effect of the petitioner had also been withheld; 3. that no hearing had been afforded to him before passing it (the impugned order), and that when order dated Jan. 28, 1963, had allowed the period of suspension to be treated as spent on duty for all purposes, full pay and allowances for the said period could not be declined.;