- (1.) Undisputedly, the petitioner, who was working as Personnel Manager, was arrested by the C.B.I. on 9.10,1990 in a case under sections 7, 13 (2) read with section 13 (i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Annexure 1 to the writ petition; order dated 01.11.1990, Annexure- 1 to the writ petition, was passed to the effect that the petitioner would deemed to have been suspended with effect from 9.10.1990, on account of his detention, under Rule 24. 7 (1) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, till further order. Suspension was revoked on 20th September, 1992 vide Annexure 2. The petitioner stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.2.1993. No disciplinary proceeding was ever drawn or is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner, has approached this Court seeking writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the entire salary for the period he remained under suspension i.e. with effect from 9.10.1990 to 27.9.1992 and for payment of leave encashment for the period aforesaid. Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since no departmental proceeding was ever drawn or is pending against the petitioner, therefore, the respondents are bound to make payment of the salary for the period he remained under suspension. He has further contended that the salary of the petitioner cannot be withheld by the respondents without there being any order either in the disciplinary proceeding or in the criminal case. He further contends that withholding the salary amount to punishment under the Service Law. He has further contended that no show cause notice was ever issued against the petitioner nor he was ever heard before the impugned order was passed withholding salary of the petitioner.
(2.) On the other hand, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, has vehemently argued that the order of suspension was revoked by the respondents under Clause 26.1 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978. He has further argued that as per Rule 26.6, the competent authority may review the order of revocation of suspension passed under Rule 26.1 after outcome of the criminal trial pending against the petitioner. He has further contended that as per Rule 26.1, competent authority may pass order to with-hold salary for the period of suspension while reviewing the case under Rule 2.6.6 after the final judgment in the criminal trial.
(3.) On being asked as to whether while revoking the suspension order vide Annexure 2, any order was passed by the competent authority that salary of the petitioner for the period he remained under suspension shall not be paid, Learned Counsel for the respondents has fairly stated that no such order was passed at the time of revoking the suspension order. He, however, submits that on the request letter of the petitioner, a decision was taken vide Annexure 3 dated 19/21.12.1992 that the petitioner shall be paid full salary for the period of suspension if the petitioner is acquitted in the criminal case.;