R V RAMACHANDRAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The important question of law arising for decision in this case is whether an officer who is reinstated in service after suspension for involvement in criminal case is entitled to claim the suspension period as period on duty with all monetary benefits if the acquittal is not based on a finding that the prosecution case is wholly baseless; but only on grant of benefit of doubt. The important question of law arising for decision in this case is whether an officer who is reinstated in service after suspension for involvement in criminal case is entitled to claim the suspension period as period on duty with all monetary benefits if the acquittal is not based on a finding that the prosecution case is wholly baseless; but only on grant of benefit of doubt.

(2.) While working as typist in the Government Leprosy Hospital, Koratty, the petitioner was placed under suspension as per Ext. P1 order dt. 18.7.1987 w.e.f. 5.7.1987 for the reason that criminal case involving offence under Sections 420 and 477 A of the I.P.C. was registered against him by the Chalakudy police as Crime No. 196 of 1987. After due trial the petitioner was acquitted in the case vide Ext. P2 judgment granting benefit of doubt.

(3.) After considering the said acquittal the petitioner was re-instated in service vide Ext. P3 order of the first respondent and it was mentioned that orders regularizing the period of suspension would be issued separately. Ultimately the second respondent directed that the suspension period would be treated as duty for all service benefits except for pay and allowances and that the petitioner need only be paid subsistence allowance for the said period. It was also mentioned in Ext. P5 that the order should be issued only after issuance of notice to the petitioner. Accordingly Ext. P6 show cause notice was issued and after considering the explanation, Ext. P8 order was passed confirming that the said period would be treated as on duty, but only with subsistence allowance and not with full pay and allowances. The petitioner is now aggrieved that though Ext. P9 appeal was filed before the second respondent challenging that finding, it is dismissed vide Ext. P10 order without stating any reasons.