Case Note & Summary
The case involved a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking to quash orders related to his suspension periods and to have those periods treated as time spent on duty. The petitioner was suspended for two periods: from 29.07.2019 to 10.10.2019 and from 29.12.2020 to 24.03.2021. During the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was ultimately exonerated of all charges. The petitioner argued that since he was exonerated, the suspension periods should be considered as periods spent on duty. However, the Additional Government Pleader contended that the petitioner had previously filed another writ petition seeking salary for the same suspension periods, where the court had directed that the suspension be adjusted against any available leave. The court noted that the petitioner had agreed to this adjustment and that the respondent authorities had acted in accordance with this agreement. The court concluded that there was no infirmity in the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition, thereby closing the connected miscellaneous petition without costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Suspension Period Calculation - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner sought to quash orders regarding suspension periods and have them treated as duty. The court found that the petitioner had previously agreed to treat the suspension as leave, thus dismissing the petition. Held that the prior agreement precluded the current claim (Paras 1-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suspension periods should be treated as a period spent on duty.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no infirmity in the impugned orders and confirming the adjustment of the suspension periods against available leave.
Law Points
- Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
- Article 226
- suspension period
- disciplinary proceedings
- leave adjustment
