- (1.) HEARD Mr. K.B. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Banani Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 5 -8 -97 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1357 of 1996 (R) whereby learned single Judge, although granted some relief to the petitioner -appellant regarding payment of retiral dues after superannuation, but affirmed the order passed by the respondent in departmental proceeding and disallowed the claim of the petitioner for payment of remuneration during the period of suspension. The petitioner -appellant while working as a Munsi in Bokaro Colliery in 1986, he was served with the charge -sheet on 25 -9 -86 alleging certain misconduct committed by him. By the said order, the petitioner was put under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. Departmental proceeding was finally concluded and order of punishment was issued on 27 -6 -91 i.e. about five years after submission of charge -sheet. By the said order of suspension, two increments with cumulative effect were stopped. The petitioner was released from suspension and was allowed to join his duty. The petitioner joined the duty and thereafter, he superannuated on 22 -7 -92. The petitioner thereafter claimed all of his retiral dues including salary for the period of suspension. Learned Single Judge on the question of payment of remuneration, during the period of suspension, has recorded his findings as under. "Regarding payment of full benefits of the basic pay during the period of suspension, no authority could be submitted from the side of the petitioner that he is entitled to full basic pay during the period of suspension as he was asked to be present in the place of service during the office hours. When no authority could be shown on this point, only because the petitioner was asked to remain present during the whole office hours, the petitioner is not entitled to basic pay during the period of suspension and the matter has already became stale one as the petitioner has not claimed so and only in the year 1996, the same has been raised."
(3.) WE have gone through the memo of charge and the order of punishment, copies of which have been annexed in the writ petition. In the charge -sheet -cum -suspen -sion order dated 25 -9 -86, it was mentioned in para -4 that during the pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner who is put under suspension, shall not leave the station and shall be called upon on all working days in office at 10.30 a.m. for getting his presence and for receiving any instruction and communication relating to him and then he may leave the office after such action is taken. In the order of punishment, it is simply mentioned that there shall be stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. There is nothing in the punishment order that the petitioner is not entitled to get his basic pay and other remuneration during the period of suspension excepting subsistence allowance.;