- (1.) IN compliance with the Finance (4) Department endrosement D. IV/2972/59/FIS/(108) FD/G)58, Shri Ramswaroop Ex -Store Keeper of Civil Supplies Deptt. Sawaimadhopur, is hereby reinstated from the date of order i.e., 26.11.59. In pursuance of the same order he is further given a notice of one month from the date of his reinstatement i.e. 26.11.59 that his services will not be required by this office after the expiry of the notice period 25.12.59. Sd/ Collector, Sawaimadhopur.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the above, the plaintiff filed the suit and interalia alleged that he was not allowed reasonable opportunity in the Departmental Enquiry conducted against him and the procedure followed was against the principles of natural justice and law. The lower courts have come to the conclusion that full and adequate opportunity was given to the employee. The controversy before the lower courts as well as this court is whether the removal of the petitioner by one month's notice under rule 23 Article of the R.S.R. was valid; and, whether the forfeiture of 1/3rd pay of suspension period was valid.
(3.) SO far as forfeiture of pay is concerned, it may be straight -away mentioned that in view of the fact that a judicial order was passed by a criminal court mentioning that the accused -plaintiff would be entitled to his salary, no jurisdiction was left in the Government authorities to forfeit 1/3rd of the pay of suspension period. Though, this order of the criminal court has not been placed on record, but it is not in dispute and is admitted and was read over by the Government Advocate in this Court during the arguments The order of the criminal court regarding payment of salary was a judicial order and in the face of the order the departmental authorities) were not entitled to forfeit 1/3rd pay, as has been done in this case by virtue of letter dated 11.12.59, extracted above.;