BRAHMA CHANDRA GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad confirming the decision of the District Judge in appeal reversing the decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the appellant.

(2.) Appellant was working as a permanent Upper Division Clerk in the Defence Accounts Department at the relevant time. It appears that one Nathu Singh was wanted in a dacoity case. On 14-5-62 around about 4.00 the Investigating Officer received an information that Nathu Singh was present in the Premises in possession of the present appellant and this information led to a search of the premises occupied by him. The search and the consequent seizure led to the prosecution of the appellant for two distinct offences, one under Section 19 (F) of the Indian Arms Act and another under Section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act. Pending the investigation appellant was suspended from service with effect from May 14, 1962, the order having been passed on May 5, 1962. The order of suspension simultaneously provided that appellant would be entitled to draw subsistence allowance equal to leave salary which he would have drawn had he been on leave on half pay together with admissible dearness allowance. Appellant was tried in the Court of the Magistrate, 1st Class, Shahjahanpur for the offence under S. 19 (F) of the Indian Arms Act and was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of one and half years as per the judgment dated September 15, 1964. The conviction led to the order dismissing the appellant from service effective from October 31, 1964. Appellant preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence. The appeal was allowed as per the judgment dated October 31, 1964 and appellant was held not guilty of the offence with which he was charged and he was acquitted. On being acquitted the appellant was reinstated in service effective from September 3, 1965. While ordering reinstatement in service the concerned authority was required to decide how the period of suspension should be treated. The question was to be decided in light of the provision contained in Article 193 of the Civil Service Regulation. The concerned authority divided the period of suspension of the appellant into two parts, the first being from May 14, 1962 to October 31, 1964 when appellant was acquitted and the second being from October 31, 1964 to September 3, 1965 when he was reinstated in service. With regard to the latter part, the concerned authority directed the payment of full salary after giving credit for the suspension allowance that was drawn by him and there is no dispute between the parties about it. The question then remained with regard to the period from May 14, 1962 to October 31, 1964. For this period, the concerned authority was of the opinion that the appellant could not be said to be fully exonerated and, therefore, a direction was given that the appellant should be given 3/4th of his salary for the period of suspension. The consequence was that for the aforementioned period 1/4th of his salary was not paid to the appellant. The appellant filed Suit No. 210 of 1968 in the Court of the 2nd Civil Judge, Kanpur against the Union of India contending that as he was never hauled up for departmental enquiry and he was suspended only on the ground that a criminal charge was laid against him and pending the trial of the offence, and therefore Article 193 would not be attracted and accordingly it was not open to the authority concerned to deny him full salary for the period of suspension. Alternatively it was contended that in the circumstances of the case he was deemed to have been fully exonerated and therefore also the order withholding 1/4th of the salary was not sustainable.

(3.) After all these elaborate pleadings and fifteen years of litigation the claim made in the suit was ridiculously low in the amount of Rs. 3595.07 P.