Allowed

Nilesh Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Feb 2020WPC/123/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner, acquitted in criminal trial and exonerated in departmental proceedings, approached this Court for full payment of salary for the suspension period. The Court recognized entitlement and directed the respondent authorities to decide and pay the due salary within three weeks under the Jharkhand Service Code.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to take a decision and pay difference of salary for the suspension period within three weeks.

Nilesh Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No. 123 of 2020

¶3

Nilesh Kumar Singh. … …Petitioner -Versus-

¶4

The State of Jharkhand.

¶5

The District Education Officer, Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S. & DistrictHazaribagh.

¶6

The Headmaster, +2 Hindu High School, Hazaribagh, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S. Sadar & District-Hazaribagh. … …Respondents

¶7

------------ CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner :Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mr. Prashant Pallav, G.A. IV.

¶8

¶9

02/ 06.02.2020 The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction to

¶10

the respondents to pay him full salary for the suspension period i.e. 06.09.2011 to 25.06.2015 in view of the fact that he has been acquitted in the criminal trial and exonerated in the departmental proceeding and also in view of Rule 97(2) & 99 of Jharkhand Service Code.

¶11

The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed as clerk in +2 Hindu High School, Hazaribagh. An F.I.R. being Sadar P.S. Case No. 502 of 2011 dated 16.08.2011 was lodged against unknown persons for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was apprehended by the police on 06.09.2011 and thereafter he was granted bail vide order dated 21.12.2011 passed in B.A.No.8582/2011. After that, the petitioner was released from custody on 02.01.2012. Further the petitioner was put under suspension vide memo No.2242 dated 15.09.2011 w.e.f. 06.09.2011. In the criminal case, the petitioner was honourably acquitted vide judgment dated 19.12.2014. After acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner made representation on 06.01.2015 before the respondent No.2 for recalling the suspension order dated 15.09.2011. After suspension of the petitioner w.e.f. 06.09.2011, the respondents did not initiate any departmental

¶12

¶13

proceeding and only after submission of representation dated 06.01.2015, the respondent No.2 vide memo No.232 dated 10.02.2015 issued Prapatra “K” against the petitioner. Against initiation of proceeding and the order of suspension, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(S) No.789 of 2015. This Court directed the respondent to conclude the departmental proceeding and take a decision on the order of suspension. On the direction of this Court, the respondent-authorities recalled the order of suspension and dropped departmental proceeding. After conclusion of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner filed a representation before the respondent-authorities for taking a decision on the period of suspension regarding payment of full salary. Since no decision is taken by the respondent-authority, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

¶14

Mr. Chanchal Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has honourably been acquitted in the criminal case and the order of suspension has been revoked without any punishment in the departmental proceeding and the said proceeding has also been put to an end. It was incumbent upon the respondents to take a decision in view of Rule 97(2) & 99 of Jharkhand Service Code regarding payment of full salary for the period of suspension. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that till date no decision has been taken on the salary payable for period of suspension though the petitioner is entitled for full salary in view of the honourable acquittal in the criminal case and also exoneration in the departmental proceeding and hence a direction be given to the respondent-authorities to pass a reasoned order on the pending representation of the petitioner regarding payment of full salary.

¶15

Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-State very fairly submits that in absence of any counter-affidavit he is not in a position to state as to why decision was not taken by the respondent-authorities.

¶16

¶17

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for full salary for the suspended period on the ground that petitioner has been honourably acquitted in the criminal case and further has been fully exonerated in the departmental proceeding. It was incumbent upon the respondent-State to take a decision in view of Rule 97(2) & 99 of Jharkhand Service Code.

¶18

As no decision has been taken, respondents are directed to take a decision in view of Rule 97(2) and 99 of the Jharkhand Service Code and if the petitioner is found entitled for difference of salary for the period of suspension, the same shall be paid to him within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶19

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed.

¶20

P.K.S.

Nilesh Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilesh Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwan Das Yadav Vs Central Coalfields Ltd. Thr Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Anr.

Ravita Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mohar Ram Das Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Dr Subhash Chandra Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Health Medical Education and Family Welfare Deptt

Koel Raha Vs Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Anil Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand