ALOK DAS Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India relates to entitlement of the Petitioner to pay and allowances for the period of suspension pending a criminal prosecution.

(2.) FACTS , - -The Petitioner was placed under suspension under order dated 30.6.78 of the Director of Public Instruction, Arunachal Pradesh, pending a criminal prosecution being GR Case No. 368(S)/78. The Petitioner was discharged and his suspension order was revoked. Thereafter, he was reinstated in his service under order dated 4.7.88 without taking disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner. On 4.7.88 another order was issued by the Director to the effect that it was proposed that the Petitioner might be paid nothing more than what he had already received as subsistence allowance, and the Petitioner was given a notice to make representation, if so advised, against the proposed action. Thereafter, the Director made an order on 2.8.88 to the effect that the period of suspension would be treated as on duty for the purpose of pension and gratuity only; and that the Petitioner would not be entitled to any other amount than what he had already paid during that period. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed Civil Rule 105/90 in this Court. This Court on 11.4.91, quashed the order directing the Director to consider the matter afresh in accordance with the law. The Director issued notice dated 19.7.91 to the Petitioner directing him to submit representation, if any, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The Petitioner submitted representation dated 22.7.91. However, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the proceeding of the Director. Sub -rule (5) of FR 54 -B runs as follows:

(3.) SUB -rule (5) of FR 54 -B itself contemplates for giving a notice to the Government servant to submit his representation against the quantum proposed. Besides, if an order affects the employee financially, it must be passed after an objective consideration and assessment of all relevant facts and circumstances and after giving the person concerned full opportunity to make out his own case about that order see B.D. Gupta v. State of Haryana, AIR 1975 SC 2472.