SIROTTAM PRASAD PATEL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGHARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:--

(2.) The petitioner was, however, acquitted from all the charges levelled against him vide order dated 29-4-2004 (Annexure-P-2) passed by the Special Judge. Raigarh, District Raigarh in Special Criminal Case No. 03/1997. After his acquittal, the petitioner submitted series of representation dated 15-6-2004, 8-9-2004, 4-10-2004 and 1-11-2004 praying for revocation of his suspension and also for grant of back wages with other consequential benefits. Recommendation was also made by the Superintending Engineer vide memo dated 12-8-2004 addressed to the Chief Engineer. However, neither any decision was taken by the respondents in respect of the period, during which, the petitioner was suspended nor petitioner was reinstated in service.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner raised manifold contentions dealing with the aspects relating to non-regularization of the period of suspension, non-reinstatement upon acquittal and non-finalization of pension and release of all pensionary benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the petitioner was acquitted from the criminal charges by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the respondents were duty bound and obliged under the law to reinstate the petitioner immediately, as there was no further ground available under the law warranting continuance of the suspension of the petitioner, after his acquittal from criminal charges. According to him, the respondents were not justified in continuing his suspension only on the ground that against the judgment of acquittal, criminal appeal has been preferred by the State, which is pending before this Court. Further submission is that acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal charges which alone was the basis for placing him under suspension, established that his suspension was wholly unjustified and further, the entire period of suspension is liable to be regularized as on duty, entitling the petitioner to all consequential benefits including full pay/wages. The respondents have acted arbitrarily in not taking decision with regard to period of suspension. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order dated 7-5-2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh and others (Writ Appeal No. 89 of 2010, decided on 7-5-2010).