Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents on 1.8.2002 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the entire period of suspension with interest @ 18% p.a.
(2.) The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under : (1) That the petitioner had been working on the post of Stenographer in the Court of Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Hanumangarh (Respondent No. 2) since 21.10.1997. (ii) That respondent No. 3 (Shri Gulab Chand Sharma, RHJS) joined as Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Hanumangarh in the month of February, 2001, but the relationship between the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 (Shri Gulab Chand Sharma) were not cordial because of many reasons as are mentioned in para 5 to 9 of the writ petition. (iii) That further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner fell sick on 30.5.2001 and took treatment initially from an Ayurvedic Chikitsak.Thereafter the petitioner sought treatment from Dr. Beniwal from 3.6.2001 onwards and on 6.6.2001, the petitioner had been admitted in Government Hospital and was discharged on 7.6.2001. However, he was advised bed rest upto 11.6.2001 and the Government Hospital issued Medical & Fitness Certificates to resume duty on 12.6.2001. (iv) That further case of the petitioner is that when he reported for joining duty on 12.6.2001, he was not taken on duty on the ground that he should have submitted fitness certificates from all the doctors who had treated him. Not only this, a notice was issued on 11.6.2001 (Annex. 1) by the respondent No. 2 (Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Hanumangarh) to the petitioner to show cause as to why the action be no taken against him for remaining absent from duty. (v) That further case of the petitioner is that through order dated 4.6.2001 (Annex. 2) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Hanumangarh), he was put under suspension in anticipation of an enquiry to be initiated against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958). Thereafter, he was served with a charge sheet dated 24.7.2001 (Annex. 3) along with statement of allegations. (vi) That the further case of the petitioner is that in-spite of presenting joining report on 12.6.2001 as well as on 13.6.2001, the petitioner was not taken on duty and he was being shown absent. (vii) Further case of the petitioner is that the suspension order was served on the petitioner on 13.6.2001 and thereafter he submitted an application dated 2.7.2001 (Annex. 5) for grant of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension but that application was dismissed through Order dated 3.7.2001 (Annex. 6) passed by the Respondent No. 3 (Shit Gulab Chand Sharma, RHJS, (the then Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Hanumangarh) on the ground that fitness certificates were not produced as they should have been produced in the prescribed proforma. (viii) When the application (Annex. 5) for grant of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension was rejected by respondent No. 3 (Gulab Chand Sharma) vide order dated 3.7.2001 (Annex. 6) he also approached that Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court through representation dated 11.7.2001 (Annex. 8). (ix) Further case of the petitioner is that in spite of several representations, the petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance. After the transfer of respondent No. 3 (Shri Gulab Sharma), when the District Judge Shri Hari Singh Punta was holding the additional charge of the court of special Judge, NDPS cases, Hanumangarh, he ordered for grant of subsistence allowance to the petitioner through Order dated 14.8.2001 (Annex. 11) but in spite of that subsistence allowance was not paid to the petitioner. (x) That the further case of the petitioner is that when the matter of subsistence allowance came to the knowledge of the Enquiry Officer Shri Chandra Narayan Mathur, RHJS (ADJ Fast Track Hanumangarh), he through order dated 23.3.2001 (Annex. 15) ordered that the petitioner was entitled for subsistence allowance since 13.6.2001 after production of fitness certificates but subsistence allowance had not been paid to the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition with the above mentioned prayer.
(3.) A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 and their main case is that no doubt on resuming duty on 12.6.2001, the petitioner submitted Medical & Fitness Certificates from Dr. Beniwal and Dr. Saharan but Medical & Fitness Certificate of Vaidya Shri Prem Ratan was not submitted and since Certificates in the prescribed proforma were not produced by the petitioner, he was not allowed to join duty and thus he was not entitled for subsistence allowance. Hence, no case is made out and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.;