PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE Vs. JOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Respondent herein while working as Junior Accountant in Sub Treasury Office, Kasargod was caught red handed by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau when the Respondent accepted bribe from the Principal of a parallel college on 7-7-1997 for numbering a bunch of chalan forms presented before the Treasury for remittance of the examination fees of the students. The matter was brought to the notice of the authorities and by Ext. P-1 order dated 10-12-1997 issued by the District Treasury Officer, Kasargod, suspended the Respondent from service with effect from 8-12-1997 pending enquiry in connection with report of acceptance of bribe. The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kasargod after due investigation, filed charge-sheet against the Respondent before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode alleging offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode after due trial found the Respondent guilty for the above offences, convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000 each for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Consequently, on 17-12-2001 by Ext. P-2 order, the District Treasury Officer, Kasargod terminated the service of the Respondent with effect from the date of suspension. In Crl. Appeal No. 285/2000, this Court by Ext. P-3 judgment dated 15-7-2005 acquitted the Respondent giving benefit of doubt. On representation from the Respondent, by Ext. P-4 dated 5-12-2005, the Respondent was reinstated in service. Accordingly, the Respondent rejoined service with effect from 14-12-2005.

(3.) The Respondent represented the Government by letter dated 4-2-2006, responding to which Ext. P-5 Order dated 18-3-2006 was issued by the Principal Secretary, Finance, whereby the period of absence from the duty is. 8-12-1997 to 14-12-2005 was regularized as duty except for pay and allowances and for accrual of earned leave for the period to be reduced to the subsistence allowance admissible under Rule 55, Part I, KSR. Being not satisfied, the Respondent made Ext. P-6 representation dated 15-5-2006 stating that since he was acquitted the case is to be settled under Rule 56A(3) of Part I, KSR and for disbursing the full salary and other allowances. The first Appellant considered the matter and rejected Ext. P-6 and intimated the same to the 2nd Appellant, who in turn sent Ext. P-7 communication dated 22-7-2006 to the 3rd Appellant. Ext. P-7 was communicated to the Respondent.