Dismissed

Triveni Prasad Saxena v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC25 Nov 2014SAW/493/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an appeal against an order denying salary claims to an employee who failed to report for duty after a conditional reinstatement. The court held the suspension was not revoked due to his non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; no salary claim was allowed. The appellant was not entitled to salary during the suspension period due to failure to report for duty.

Triveni Prasad Saxena Vs State and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

SAW - 493/ 01

¶2

( 1)

¶3

I n The Hi gh Cour t of Judi cat ur e f or Raj ast han Jai pur Bench, Jai pur O R D E R

¶4

D. B. Ci vi l Speci al Appeal ( Wr i t ) No. 493/ 2001

¶5

Dat e : 25/ 11/ 2014

¶6

Hon' bl e Mr . Just i ce Aj ay Rast ogi Hon' bl e Mr . Just i ce Veer endr Si ngh Si r adhana

¶7

Mr . Anand Shar ma Adv. , f or appel l ant . Mr . Raj endr a Pr asad Addl . Adv. Gener al f or St at e. I nst ant appeal i s di r ect ed agai nst or der of t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge dt . 16. 08. 2000.

¶8

The f act s whi ch ar e r el evant f or our consi der at i on ar e t hat t he appel l ant i ni t i al l y j oi ned ser vi ce as LDC on 17. 05. 1959 and was pr omot ed on t he post of UDC i n 1974 and i ndi sput abl y he was hol di ng t r ansf er abl e post and vi de or der dt . 01. 09. 1979 he was t r ansf er r ed t o Jhunj hunu but he di d not j oi n and f or hi s l ong wi l l f ul absence f r om dut i es char ge sheet was ser ved and f or der el i ct i on of dut i es enqui r y was conduct ed agai nst hi m and af t er f ol l owi ng t he pr ocedur e pr ovi ded under CCA Rul es, 1958 he was f ound gui l t y and i nf l i ct ed penal t y pr ovi ded u/ R 14 of t he Rul es, 1958 and t he appeal pr ef er r ed by hi m al so came t o be r ej ect ed by t he appel l at e aut hor i t y uphol di ng t he penal t y i nf l i ct ed upon hi m by t he di sci pl i nar y aut hor i t y.

¶9

As i t r eveal s f r om t he r ecor d t hat af t er i ni t i at i on of di sci pl i nar y enqui r y t he appel l ant was pl aced under suspensi on and pendi ng enqui r y he was r ei nst at ed pur suant t o or der dt . 20. 05. 1986 but i t was a condi t i onal or der and he had t o r epor t on dut y at t he pl ace of hi s post i ng at Udai pur but i ndi sput abl y he di d not j oi n i n compl i ance t her eof

¶10

SAW - 493/ 01

¶11

( 2)

¶12

and was f i nal l y puni shed wi t h t he penal t y i nf l i ct ed upon hi m.

¶13

When t he mat t er was chal l enged at t he i nst ance of t he pet i t i oner appel l ant by f i l i ng wr i t pet i t i on bef or e t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge i t appear s t hat as r egar ds t he pr ocedur e f ol l owed i n hol di ng hi m gui l t y and passi ng t he or der of penal t y was not speci f i cal l y ur ged f or consi der at i on, however t he submi ssi on was t hat once t her e i s an or der of r ei nst at ement r evoki ng t he or der of suspensi on he was ent i t l ed f or t he sal ar y of t he i nt er veni ng per i od.

¶14

The l ear ned Si ngl e Judge t aki ng not e of t he mat er i al obser ved t hat t he or der by whi ch suspensi on was r evoked, i t was condi t i onal or der wi t h di r ect i on t o r epor t at t he pl ace of hi s post i ng at Udai pur and t hat i s al so evi dent f r om t he or der of r evocat i on of or der of suspensi on dt . 20. 05. 1986 and i ndi sput abl y t he appel l ant f ai l ed t o r epor t at t he pl ace of hi s post i ng and bei ng a composi t e or der of r ei nst at ement and t o j oi n at t he pl ace of post i ng pur suant t her et o whi ch i ndi sput abl y has not been compl i ed wi t h by t he appel l ant suspensi on coul d not be sai d t o have been r evoked and wi l l not make hi m ent i t l ed t o cl ai m sal ar y f or t he per i od ot her t han subsi st ence al l owance pai d t o hi m and t hi s what t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge obser ved whi l e passi ng or der i mpugned dt . 16. 08. 2000.

¶15

The mai n t hr ust of submi ssi on of counsel f or appel l ant i s t hat t he penal t y i nf l i ct ed upon t he appel l ant was speci f i cal l y chal l enged but was not at

¶16

SAW - 493/ 01

¶17

( 3)

¶18

al l l ooked i nt o by t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge and as r egar ds t he per i od of suspensi on i s concer ned once t he or der of suspensi on st ands r evoked he was ent i t l ed t o cl ai m sal ar y f or t he per i od ot her t han subsi st ence al l owance pai d t o hi m and i f he had not r epor t ed on dut y at l east t he or der of suspensi on once r evoked wi l l not di s- ent i t l e t o cl ai m sal ar y f or t he i nt er veni ng per i od and such f i ndi ng r ecor ded by t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge i s whol l y per ver se and r equi r es i nt er f er ence by t hi s Cour t .

¶19

As we have al r eady not i ced f r om t he mat er i al on r ecor d t hat t he or der of suspensi on was r evoked vi de or der dt . 20. 05. 1986 i t was a composi t e & condi t i onal or der of r evocat i on of suspensi on and he was asked t o r epor t at t he pl ace of hi s post i ng whi ch i ndi sput abl y t he appel l ant f ai l ed t o j oi n and t hat bei ng so t he or der of suspensi on coul d not be sai d t o be r evoked and as he r emai ned under suspensi on dur i ng t he i nt er veni ng as wel l t hat coul d not make hi m ent i t l ed t o cl ai m sal ar y f or t he i nt er veni ng per i od ot her t han subsi st ence al l owance pai d t o hi m and t hi s what t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge obser ved and r epel l ed hi s submi ssi on under or der i mpugned dt . 16. 08. 2000.

¶20

As r egar ds t he submi ssi on made i n r espect of t he penal t y i nf l i ct ed upon t he appel l ant i s concer ned we do not f i nd t hat any submi ssi on i n t hi s r egar d bei ng made by t he appel l ant bef or e t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge and i t may not be open now f or us t o consi der i n t he i nst ant i nt r a- cour t appeal .

¶21

Consequent l y, i n our consi der ed vi ew t he appeal

¶22

SAW - 493/ 01

¶23

( 4)

¶24

i s devoi d of mer i t and accor di ngl y di smi ssed.

¶25

( Veer endr Si ngh Si r adhana) , J ( Aj ay Rast ogi ) , J

¶26

VS/ - (D1)

¶27

Certificate - All corrections have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed/ Vijay Singh Shekhawat/ PAJW

Triveni Prasad Saxena v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Triveni Prasad Saxena v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India and Ors. Vs Gajendra Kumar Sharma and Ors.

State of Raj and Ors. Vs Braj Mohan Gochar

Ali Mohammed Vs State Home Departmentors

Pratibha Goyal Vs Raj High Court and Ors.

Hari Kishan Vs Registrar General R H C and Anr.

Deepa Kaushik Vs Registrar General R H C and Ors.