This OA was decided by the Tribunal on November 18, 2003 quashing the orders dated May 13, 1996.
In the meantime, third charge sheet dated October 05, 1998 was also served upon him.
At the same time, liberty was granted to the State of Maharashtra to pass a fresh order on issue of revocation of suspension.
1037 of 1988 under Article 32 of the Constitution, in this Court.
In the meantime, since direction of this Court to grant him senior time scale was to be companyplied with by the Government, the Collector, Kolhapur sent a bill to be signed by the petitioner so that subsistence allowance companyld be paid.
Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed writ petition number 2768 of 2007 in the High Court of Delhi.
On the other hand, as the petitioner had number joined the services in spite of revocation of suspension on May 13, 1996, another charge sheet dated May 04, 1998 was issued to the petitioner on the ground that he remained unauthorisedly absent from duty and had also left the headquarters without permission of the Competent Authority.
2947 of 2003, OA No.
In spite of that petitioner who appears in person has filed an application for transfer of the matter to another Bench.
3446 of 1987.
The petitioner assailed the order of the Tribunal by filing Special Leave Petition in this Court in which leave was granted and the case was registered as Civil Appeal No.
Civil Appeal No.
With this background, we revert back to writ petition Nos.916/2007 and 2768/2007.
After the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed O.A. No.
In this OA, he also filed six miscellaneous applications seeking various other reliefs.
283 of 1986 and the Tribunal ultimately dismissed the aforesaid transfer application of the petitioner on January 19, 1987.
The petitioner once again filed another companytempt petition in Civil Appeal No.
6,82,290/ , was tendered to the petitioner in the Court, however, he refused to accept the same on the ground that this salary was calculated as per the senior time scale but in the meantime persons junior to him had been promoted and, therefore, he should be given the salary of promotional post.
916 of 2007 in the High Court of Delhi.
the period during which he remained under suspension.
No other relief was granted to the petitioner on the ground that in one OA, the petitioner had joined multifarious causes.
The order of the Tribunal was number even challenged before the High Court and, thus, it became final.
Pertinently, the petitioner received the amount of ?
However, salary for the period after June, 1996 was declined with the observation that if the petitioner joins service as Deputy Secretary, the salary shall be paid.
1037 of 1988 records Despite the service of numberice of hearing to the petitioner for remaining present the petitioner has number remained present.
Vide another order dated June 07, 1996, he was directed to take charge as Deputy Secretary, Social Welfare, Cultural Affairs and Sports Department, Government of Maharashtra to finalize the procedural formalities required to be companypleted for the State of Punjab to take him on deputation.
In this writ petition, interim orders dated November 02, 1988 were passed staying the proceedings in the charge sheet which was served upon the petitioner on July 06, 1988.
1714 of 2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
Suffice it to state that the petitioner was denied senior time scale and he challenged the same by filing writ petition in the High Court of Bombay claiming that he was entitled to the senior time scale with effect from January 01, 1986.
As far as writ petition No.916/2007 is companycerned, let it be recapitulated that it arises out of OA No.1714/2003 wherein the petitioner had challenged the order dated May 13, 1996 by which his suspension was revoked.
The amount was calculated and salary for this period, which was in the sum of ?
However, numberwithstanding various companymunications written to him in this behalf he did number sign the same number submitted number employment certificate.
The petitioner filed review application in the said OA on the ground that once the order of revocation of suspension was quashed, the Tribunal companyld number have granted permission to the State Government to pass a fresh order.
This application for review was dismissed.
Finally, the request of the petitioner to send him on deputation to the State of Punjab was also turned down by the Government of India on February 27, 1997, going by the aforesaid subsequent events which have taken place.
As pointed out above, though he filed two review petitions seeking review of that portion of the order by which Tribunal had given liberty to the State Government to pass fresh order of suspension but did number even ask for review of the order denying him salary for the period after June 05, 1996.
On the other hand, the petitioner resorted to multiple litigation before the Tribunal and also in this Court directly.
We do number find any fault in dismissing this writ petition as well.
The said order was quashed on the ground that a companyposite order companytemplated by Rule 5B had to be passed with respect to the manner in which suspension period was to be reckoned or the entitlement of payment of salary.
In the process, this Court observed that the issue of payment of salary at higher scale companyld number be decided in the companytempt petition.
He filed one more application for review which was also dismissed.
The petitioner, promptly, filed companytempt petition in Civil Appeal No.
In order to enable the petitioner to join there, the suspension of the petitioner was also withdrawn vide orders dated May 13, 1996.
3464 of 1987, against the number denial of the senior time scale to the petitioner, was also allowed by this Court vide order dated August 30, 1988, i.e., two months before the stay of charge sheet was granted.
3464 of 1987 and raised many other grievances therein as well including number grant of subsistence allowance.
During the pendency of the Civil Appeal, the petitioner was suspended vide orders dated May 26, 1988 and a charge sheet was served upon him for major penalty proceedings on July 06, 1988.
3092/2003, the petitioner had challenged third charge sheet dated October 05, 1998 wherein the charge was that he had number filed annual returns.
The petitioner, however, did number join the said posting because of which his joining State of Punjab on deputation also companyld number materialize.
2507 of 2005 as well as miscellaneous applications were disposed of by the Tribunal holding that order dated July 29, 2004 was repugnant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court to pay full salary for the aforesaid period.
1037 of 1988 was also dismissed with a direction that the petitioner may avail the alternative remedy of approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Eschewing the unnecessary details, we companyfine the narration to only those facts which are absolutely essential and relevant to decide the companytroversy at hand.
Orders were passed on September 19, 2001 by the Court for payment of companyplete salary to the petitioner from May 01, 1988 to May 13, 1996.
After the Tribunal had decided OA No.
Thereafter, vide order dated December 09, 2005, Writ Petition C No.
He challenged order dated May 13, 1996, revoking his suspension and prayed that it be set aside on the ground that companyposite order of revocation of suspension should have been passed which should have included pay and allowances that are to be paid during the period of suspension ending with reinstatement and also whether or number the period of suspension is to be treated as period on duty.
6,82,290/ .
Thereafter, on an application filed, the writ petition was restored.
1714 of 2003 and permitted the Department to pass an order pertaining to the period the petitioner remained under suspension, the Government passed the orders dated July 29, 2004 declining to pay full pay and allowances to the petitioner for the period May 26, 1988 to May 12, 1996, viz.,
This was also one of the prayers in OA No.1714/2003 before the Tribunal.
This OA is still pending before the Tribunal.
3092 of 2003 and OA No.
6,82,290/ later on.
He also challenged orders dated March 27, 2003 wherein he was intimated that salary companyld number be paid to him as he was number reporting for duty.
75 of 2003 claiming multifarious reliefs pertaining to his service which was dismissed on June 16, 2003.
In this O.A., he also justified his number joining the duty in terms of orders dated June 07, 1996 on the ground that the post of Deputy Secretary was below his entitlement as the persons immediately junior to him had earned a promotion.
There were certain jerks and upheavals in the service career of the petitioner from the very beginning which need number be mentioned.
Significantly, the prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition for staying the order of suspension was number allowed and, therefore, the petitioner remained under suspension since May 26, 1988.
Challenging the orders of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed Writ Petition Civil No.
However, in the application submitted by the petitioner to the Central Government for his being transferred on deputation to the State of Punjab he put certain companyditions which were number acceptable to the State of Maharashtra.
Significantly, the petitioner did number challenge this part of the order.
In OA No.
The State of Maharashtra informed the Court that his suspension had been revoked but he was number joining the duties.
The Court, taking numbere of the obstinate stand of the petitioner, dismissed the companytempt petition as well as all pending applications of October 18, 2001.
The petitioner, thus, became entitled to be placed in the senior time scale.
Vide orders dated May 18, 2004, all these three OAs were dismissed by the Tribunal.
2947 of 2003, the petitioner sought quashing of inquiry report dated November 01, 2003 pertaining to the second charge sheet in which he was charged with the misconduct of unauthorisedly remaining absent from duty.
The order dated October 07, 2002 passed in Writ Petition C No.
The writ petitions, companytempt petitions, criminal appeal and the I.A. are dismissed for default.
Interim order stands vacated.
In O.A. No.
It was also pointed out that subsistence allowance companyld number be paid as he had number signed the bills sent to him.
2507 of 2005.
However, the background facts under which the issues have cropped up for discussion need to be recapitulated.
The petitioner had filed three more OAs, namely, OA No.
The petitioner thereafter filed another OA but companyfined his relief insofar as it related to charge sheet dated May 04, 1998 and penalty imposed on him vide orders dated April 02, 2007.
This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing OA No.
This order of suspension as well as validity of the charge sheet was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition C No.
At the same time, the Tribunal also numbered that in any case the petitioner had already received full salary for this period, that is, some of ?
Few more OAs were also filed by the petitioner in CAT which were dismissed by the Tribunal.
Against those orders, writ petitions were also preferred.
With the companystitution of Central Administrative Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal , on passing of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1986, this writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal bearing Transfer Application No.
The petitioner herein, after emerging as a successful candidate in the Civil Services Examination, was selected in the Indian Administrative Service IAS and was allocated to Maharashtra cadre, where he joined on September 01, 1982.
The petitioner, thus, also challenged his posting as Deputy Secretary, he also questioned the validity of two charge sheets dated May 04, 1998 and October 05, 1998 and sought quashing thereof including quashing of the order dated September 18, 2002 whereby an enquiry officer was appointed.
3141 of 2003 which were disposed of by the Tribunal by companymon order dated May 18, 2004.
The said OA No.
There were yet various writ petitions, companytempt petitions and criminal appeals filed by the petitioner in this Court, all of which were dismissed in default on October 07, 2002.
Rather than arguing the writ petition, the petitioner filed another writ petition No.
K. SIKRI, J. Though, the issue raised in this Special Leave Petition is very short and in a narrow campus, it has a chequered history.
The question is only as to whether the petitioner is entitled to full salary from June 05, 1996.
