LAWS(DLH)-1996-11-18

ABBAS KHAN Vs. BEGUM BILQUEES LATIF

Decided On November 27, 1996
MOHAMMAD ABBAS KHAN Appellant
V/S
BEGUM BILQUEES LATIF Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Mohd. Abbas Khan was appointed as Physical Instructer in the Bal Bhawan and National children Museum on 21st July, 1957. Vide order dated 10th January, 1969 he was placed under suspension on the ground that disciplinary proceedings against him were contemplated. A charge sheet dated 10th January, 1969 was served on him. The Enquiry Committee completed its proceedings on 11th May, 1969 and submitted its report dated 26th May, 1969. On the basis of the said report, the respondent provisionally came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in service. The petitioner represented against that. His representation was not accepted hence vide order dated 9th July, 1969 he was compulsorily retired from service. The appeal/review preferred by him was also dismissed.

(2.) Against the order of the compulsory retirement this petitioner preferred a Writ petition. That was listed as C.W.P No-662/70. The said petition was disposed of by the single Judge of this Court whereby the petition was accepted. The order of compulsory retirement as well as the report of the Enquiry Committee was set aside vide order dated 23rd April, 1981. However, this Court permitted the respondent to have a De novo enquiry against the petitioner from the stage of framing of the charge. This was permitted by the Court in order to enable the respondent to hold fresh enquiry because earlier report was set aside on technical ground. The respondent filed Letters Patent Appeal (in short LPA) against the order of the Single Judge. This was listed as LPA.No. 106/81. Vide order dated 23rd March, 1995 the Division Bench dismissed the LPA. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 23rd April, 1981 was confirmed by the Division Bench.-

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that after the dismissal of the LPA, he wrote number of letters to the respondents for treating his suspension period on duty. It was also pointed out that he be paid arrears of salary as he continues to be in employment. The respondents instead of making payment informed him vide letter dated 5th July, 1995 that the matter was under consideration. Since the LPA was dismissed, there was nothing for the respondents to consider except to implement the judgment of the learned Single Judge.