UNION OF INDIA Vs. AMRIK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the respondent to seek a review of our judgment dated January 12, 2007 whereby we have upheld the decision of the Tribunal that the finding of misconduct of misappropriation against the respondent was based upon surmise and conjecture and that it was a case of "no evidence" against the respondent. However, we have interfered with the decision of the Tribunal in so far as the grant of relief of 50% back wages is concerned. Our observations from para 26 to 30 are relevant for the purpose of consideration of the review application and therefore we reproduce the same herein below:-

(2.) The respondent submits that there is a typographical error in the date as mentioned in para 30 of the aforesaid judgment. We had observed that the direction for payment of 50% backwages for the period "upto 17.7.1995" was not justified, and to that extent we had set aside the order of the Tribunal. We had also observed that the respondent would be entitled to payment of 50% of backwages for the period "after 17.7.1995", subject to adjustment of subsistence allowance received by him for that period. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the date typed as 17.7.1995 is incorrect since no incident had taken place on 17.7.1995. In fact the respondent was acquitted in the criminal case on "17.7.1985" and the Court had observed in para 29 that upon the acquittal of the respondent, the petitioner had no justification to deprive the respondent of his right to resume his duties and to continue his suspension till his removal from service on 31.8.1990. It is also contended by the respondent/applicant that the respondent ought to be granted full wages for the period after 17.7.1985 when he was acquitted by the appellate court. His further submission is that there is no specific direction issued regarding pay and allowances for the period from the date the Tribunal passed the order dated 21.7.1997 upto the date the respondent was reinstated in service, i.e. vide order dated 15.5.2007.

(3.) The petitioner has filed its reply. It is contended that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner has implemented the judgment by making payment of arrears as per the statement contained in Annexure R-1 to the reply.