HUKUM SINGH Vs. CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 22nd September, 2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.1328/2010, titled as Hukum Singh & Ors. v. Central Public Works Department & Anr.? declining to grant them back wages while setting aside their suspension order dated 4th October, 1986, as the order was challenged by the petitioners after a lapse of about 25 years without disclosing any reason. However the Tribunal did direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension as period spent on duty for the purpose of pensionary benefits but not for any other purpose.

(2.) Brief facts to comprehend the controversies raised by the petitioners are that they were working as gardeners with the Horticulture Department of Respondent no.1, when at the relevant time since they were members of a Union which was on strike, according to the petitioners, the Management had falsely alleged that the petitioners had beaten up their superior which had led to the filing of an FIR against them. Petitioners further disclosed that in the said criminal case against them, the Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 26th March, 1988 sentenced the petitioners to undergo imprisonment for three months for the offences punishable under Sections 186 & 335 of Indian Penal Code and four months for the offence punishable under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners thereafter, also preferred an appeal against their conviction by order dated 26th March, 1988 being Criminal Appeal No.70/1985 which was partly allowed and the sentence of four months under Section 332 of the Indian Penal code was modified to imprisonment for three months. However, the sentence of three months for the offences punishable under Sections 186 & 335 of the Indian Penal code was maintained.

(3.) Pursuant to their conviction, the petitioners were dismissed from the service by order dated 24th March, 1986 w.e.f. 15th March, 1986. The order of dismissal was, however, superseded by another order dated 4th October, 1986, on account of a settlement arrived at between the Union and the respondents, whereby instead of dismissal from service, the petitioners were deemed to have been placed under suspension w.e.f. 15th March, 1986 till further orders.