JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Vs. DAYANAND TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners Joint Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police by this Writ Petition, assail the judgment dated 29.9.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, had directed that the respondent be considered for regular promotion from 29.3.1994. Further, that he would be entitled to arrears of pay as a consequence to the promotion if accorded and also in case, further regular promotion, if accorded. Petitioners were also given the liberty to seek modification of the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 6.8.2002, if considered appropriate by the petitioners.

(2.) For appreciation of the grounds in the present writ petition and the matter in controversy, the relevant facts are being set out hereinafter.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the writ petition in assailing the impugned order passed submitted that a criminal case was pending against the respondent following the filing of the charge sheet. The subsequent filing of the charge sheet by C.B.I. had been ignored while passing the impugned order. This plea is not of any avail to the petitioner as already noted vide judgment dated 10.7.2006, the respondent has been acquitted and the Court has held that the respondent has been able to establish his defence making the prosecution version highly doubtful. Learned counsel for the petitioner next attempted to urge that though the Tribunal had relied on the judgment in Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman (supra). The said case would not come to the rescue of the respondent inasmuch as in Jankiraman's case no criminal proceedings were pending against the delinquent employee while in the present case, at the relevant time, criminal prosecution was pending. Counsel for the petitioner further relied on Baldev Singh Vs. Union of India reported at JT 2005 (10) SC 213 wherein the Court held that simply because there had been acquittal, the same would not automatically entitle the employee to get salary for the concerned period especially when he was not in actual service. It relied on the rationale of 'no work no pay'. Reliance was also placed on Union of India and Ors. Vs. Jaipal Singh reported at JT 2003 (10) SC 103, which reiterated the above position. Lastly, counsel relied on fundamental Rule 17(2), whereunder "an officer shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure a post w.e.f. the date when he assumes the duties of that post and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties" relying on the above, it was said that as the respondent had been performing the duties, he was not entitled to the pay and allowances for the period in question and proforma promotion had been rightly awarded to him.