Tapen Sen, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Sunil Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shamim Akhtar, learned S.C. II for the State -respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner prays for salary, for the period from 01.10.1999 to 29.02.2000. Annexure 1 is the order of suspension and is indicative of the fact that the petitioner along with others were put under suspension for not having joined their transferred place inspite of having been relieved. The order of suspension categorically says that they would continue to be under suspension with effect from 17.12.1999 till the date they proceed to join on their transferred place. According to the petitioner, he joined on 27.03.2000. The order of suspension was revoked by order dated 05.07.2002 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police holding that the period from 01.10.1999 to 29.02.2000 being a period of unauthorized absence, should be decided as to whether the same would be treated as such or not. It is perhaps in this context that the petitioner has not been paid any salary for the aforementioned period because no decision has yet been taken as to whether the aforesaid period is to be regularized or not.
(3.) IT is true that the conduct of the petitioner was not befitting the status of an employee of a disciplined force, but at the same time the respondent No. 4 should have taken a decision in relation to the aforementioned period within the shortest possible period of time so that the petitioner should not have been forced to come to this Court.;