High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Om Babu Srivastava v. Nagar Nigam Kanpur Nagar & Others - WRIT - A No. 24600 of 2000  RD-AH 8291 (2 May 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24600 of 2000
Om Babu Srivastava
Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar & others
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J
The petitioner was appointed as Amin in the office of the Nagar Nigam, Kanpur on 8.8.1975. He worked on such post without any complaint. Then on 7.9.1998, on the charge that the petitioner had mentioned a wrong date in a receipt, he was placed under suspension. In the enquiry proceedings the petitioner submitted that the wrong date had been mentioned because of mistake and that no harm had been caused to the interest of the Nagar Nigam and thus the petitioner was exonerated from all the charges vide enquiry report dated 27.1.1999. Thereafter, by order dated 3.7.1999 the petitioner was reinstated on two conditions. Firstly, that nothing more than the subsistence allowance which has already been paid during the period of the suspension of the petitioner, would be paid to him and secondly, that the petitioner be condemned for the negligence in performance of his duty. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal, which has been dismissed by the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanupr, respondent no. 3 vide his order dated 7.2.2000. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 3.7.1999 and 7.2.2000, this writ petition has been filed.
I have heard Sri Narendra Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.
No doubt, by mentioning a wrong date on the receipt, the petitioner could be said to have been guilty of negligence in performance of his duty but since admittedly there was no harm caused to the interest of the Nagar Nigam, the petitioner was rightly exonerated of the charges levelled against him. The condition with regard to condemning his conduct of negligence would, however, be justified but in the facts and circumstances of the case, withholding of his salary for the period of suspension, especially when he had been exonerated of the charges levelled against him, would not be justified.
As such, it is directed that the petitioner would be entitled to salary for the period during which he remained under suspension i.e. from 7.9.1998 to 3.7.1999. The first condition with regard to payment of subsistence allowance which has already been paid during the period of suspension and no further amount, is thus quashed. It is provided that the petitioner shall be paid the entire salary for the said period of suspension. The difference in amount shall be paid to him within four months from today.
With regard to second condition, in the facts of this case, keeping in view that the petitioner has been exonerated of the charges, the same may be treated as advisory and may not be recorded in the service record of the petitioner.
This writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated as above. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.