H.R. Panwar, J. - (1.) BY the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dt. 30.11.2005 so far as it forfeits the salary of the petitioner other than subsistence allowance and a direction to the respondents to make full payment of salary for the entire period of suspension.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner was facing a criminal trial. During the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner was placed under suspension. By the judgment and order dt. 10.11.2003, the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Udaipur, in Case No. 22/2001, acquitted the petitioner of the charges. After acquittal the petitioner was reinstated. However, with regard to the period of suspension, no decision was taken as the matter was kept pending till completion of the departmental proceedings. In the departmental proceeding, vide order dt. 10.09.2004 a penalty of censure was imposed upon the petitioner and it was ordered that no payment of suspension period will be made except the subsistence allowance already paid to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dt. 10.09.2004 before the Chairman and Managing Director, Ajmer Vidhyat Vitran Nigam Limited (for short 'the appellate authority' hearinafter). The appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be partly allowed by the appellate authority vide order dt. 30.11.2005 (Annex.5) and the order dt. 10.09.2004 imposing penalty of censure was set aside. However, it was made clear that no payment of suspension period will be made except the subsistence allowance already paid/drawn by the petitioner and his suspension period shall be treated on duty only for the pensionary benefits. Aggrieved by the order impugned dt. 30.11.2005 (Annex.5) to the extent directing no payment of suspension period, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents.
(3.) IT is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that Regulation 41 of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees Services Regulations, 1964 deals with reinstatement after suspension, removal or dismissal. Regulation 41(2) provides that where such competent authority holds that the employee has been fully exonerated or in the case of suspension that it was wholly unjustified, the employee shall be given the full pay and dearness allowance to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or suspended, as the case may be. Since the petitioner having been acquitted in the criminal case and the penalty of censure imposed in the departmental proceeding, has been set -aside by the disciplinary authority, there could be no reason to withhold the salary for the period of suspension.;