LAJPAT RAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was employed as an Assistant in the Directorate of Field Publicity, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. On 31st Oct., 1963 certain charges were served on him by way of a charge-sheet and was also put under suspension. An inquiry was held and the Inquiry Officer having found him guilty of the charges the petitioner was removed from service on 1st Aug., 1973. The petitioner challenged the legality and validity of this order of removal dated 1st Aug., 1973 before this Court by way of a writ petition being C.W. 519 of 1974. This Court vide judgment dated 31st July, 1984 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of removal and directed that the petitioner be given all consequential benefits which accrue to him on account of the quashing of the order of removal. Since the order was not implemented, the present contempt petition was filed on 21st May, 1985.

(2.) After the filing of the present petition the respondent paid to the petitioner pay and allowances mentioned in paragraph 4 of the affidavit dated 6th Sept., 1985 in reply to the contempt petition. The petitioner was paid pay and allowances by applying FR 54A(2) till the date of his retirement in July, 1977. As regards the pension the petitioner was paid full pension from Aug., 1977 upto date as an Assistant. The petitioner was not satisfied with this payment and, therefore, filed a further affidavit stating that in the year 1974 his juniors were promoted as Sec. Officers on the basis of their length of service and since the petitioner was under suspension the petitioner was not considered for promotion and, therefore, his suspension and removal having been set aside he should have been given notional promotion as a Sec. Officer from the date his juniors were promoted. It was stated that the petitioner was therefore entitled to pay and allowances as a Sec. Officer from 1974 to 1977 and pension as a Sec. Officer after 1977. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the order of removal was set aside by the Court FR 54A(2) was not applicable to the cases of the petitioner and the petitioner was entitled to full pay and allowances and the respondent had wrongly deducted 10% of the emoluments.

(3.) On the other hand, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that this Court had set aside the order of removal on technical grounds and not on merits. The inquiry was found to be bad on the ground that the expert's evidence was not corroborated and certain vital circumstances were not considered be the Inquiry Officer. This Court had also held that the present case was not one where no evidence was found against the petitioner at all but it was a case where a fresh inquiry could have been conducted to go into the question whether the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him. The learned Judge had further observed that since the records relating to the case of the petitioner were misplaced it was not possible to remand the case for re-hearing. It was, therefore, submitted that this was not a case of decision on merits and, therefore, FR 54A(2) would be applicable and it was within the discretion of the Govt, to deduct 10% of the emoluments provided of course the procedure as provided in FR 54 A(2) was followed. As regards the notional promotion of the petitioner as a Sec. Officer it was admitted that persons junior to the petitioner were promoted in the quota of seniority and length of service in the year 1974, however it was contended that though the petitioner could not be promoted because he was found to be unfit since the confidential reports were not available when the promotion was to be made. It was further submitted that only those persons who had very good remarks were promoted and since the petitioner was not considered to be very good he could not have been promoted as a Sec. Officer in the year 1974.