S P THUKRAL Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 13.06.2002 by which respondent (hereafter called DDA) decided that the period of his suspension shall be counted only for pensionary benefits and that the full pay would not be admissible.

(2.) The petitioner was an employee of the DDA. He was charged with demanding and accepting an amount of Rs.20,000/- on 28.10.97 as illegal gratification. Criminal proceedings were initiated and the petitioner stood trial for having offences punishable under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The petitioner, at the relevant time was working as Deputy Director in the Housing Department of DDA.

(3.) The petitioner was placed under suspension on 28.10.97. The criminal trial eventually culminated in acquittal of the petitioner; the Special Judge, by his judgment and order dated 31st day of 2001 noticed that two witnesses, namely, the complainant and the shadow witness, for the prosecution did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile and that the case had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He held that the prosecution failed to establish the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused, [namely, the petitioner] and accordingly concluded that the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner was, therefore, acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt.