SURINDER PAL JAIN Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Work Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the scale of Rs. 110-200 in December, 1968. Though stated as temporarily appointed, he continued to be in the employment of the respondents. On 23.9.1976, the petitioner was placed under suspension by Vice-Chairman, DDA on the ground that the prosecution was launched against the petitioner under Sections 302/203, Indian Penal Code as having been responsible for causing murder of his wife.

(2.) The DDA having regard to the fact that the petitioner was accused in criminal case involving a serious charge had to decide whether to keep him under suspension or terminate his service, as his appointment was under Rule 5(1) of the Temporary Service Rules, 1949. The DDA had decided and it is on record, to dispense with the service of the petitioner because the alleged person had committed the extreme offence of murder. Perhaps it was thought that the payment of subsistance allowances would be for indefinite period because normally such criminal cases take a very long time. It is clear from the file that it is only on account of the pendency of criminal case that the services of the petitioner were dispensed with. This is reiterated from the fact that the petitioner made a representation dated 19.2.1977 against his order of termination dated 6.12.1976. The DDA sent a reply staling that "with reference to his application dated 19.2.1977 written to the Vice Chairman, DDA dated 9.11.1977,1 am directed to state that it has been decided that your request for reinstatement cannot be considered till the appeal is decided".

(3.) From the record, it is clear that the services of the petitioner were dispensed with on account of the criminal case pending against the petitioner.