Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Sri Janardan Singh, Advocate.
Notice for opposite party No.1 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel, whereas Sri Vindhyawasini Kumar, learned counsel has accepted notices for opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and Sri Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate has put in appearance for opposite party No.4 and filed his Vakalatnama, the same is taken on record.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been placed under suspension vide order dated 27.07.2015, which is contained as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition, passed by the Manager of the Committee of Management Bhaiya Chandra Bhan Dutt Smarak Vidyalay, Rampur, Tengaraha, District-Gonda, but he has not been paid the subsistence allowance from the date of his suspension.
Learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 has, however, produced the copy of the judgment and order dated 28.10.2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4432 (S/S) of 2015 connected with Writ Petition No.2438 (S/S) of 1997 thereby the writ petition of the petitioners have been dismissed by this Court directing the Principal Secretary to look into the matter and institute a high level inquiry into the circumstances in which the salary was released in favour of the petitioner inspite of the stand of the official of the opposite parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, has submitted that no charge-sheet has been provided to him with effect from the date of suspension of the petitioner and specific averment to that effect has been made in para-16 of the writ petition.
However, learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 has submitted that the charge-sheet has already been issued to the petitioner on 22.09.2015, but on being asked as to what happened after 22.09.2015, learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 could not demonstrate anything, however, he has submitted that he may be given sometime to seek specific instructions thereof.
On being asked from the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as to what inquiry has been conducted against the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 28.10.2015 (supra) passed by this Court. He has also submitted that he may be granted sometime to seek instructions on that very point.
Be that at it may, the petitioner is under suspension with effect from 27.07.2015 and no inquiry of any kind whatsoever has been conducted against him. This is settled proposition of law that the incumbent may not be kept under suspension for unlimited period and the payment of subsistence allowance is not bounty but it is right of the employee concerned to get the suspension allowances. It is also settled proposition of law that factum of suspension allowance vitiates not only the suspension order but the departmental inquiry, which has been directed to be initiated against the employee concerned.
The matter requires consideration.
Let the counter affidavit be filed by the opposite parties within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter.
List this case on 04.07.2018 as fresh.
In the meantime, the opposite party Nos.1, 2 & 3 shall look into the matter and shall ensure the appropriate order be issued in respect of the payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, if there is no other legal impediment.
When the case is next listed, name of Sri Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate be shown in the cause list as counsel for the opposite parties.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]