RAJE RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 12 -07 -1994 passed by respondent No.3, whereby the salary for the period of suspension is held -up by said authority and order dated 23 -03 -1995 passed by respondent No.2, whereby the departmental appeal is dismissed.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavits on record.

(3.) BRIEF facts for the case are that the petitioner was posted as polite constable in 1986 at police out post Lakhibagh, Police Station Kotwali District Dehradun. During the period of his posting, he went on leave to his village Rara within the police station of Bilari, District Moradabad where a first information report was lodged against him and some of her persons relating to offences punishable under Section 332, 307 and 395IPC., which was registered as Case Crime No. 377 of 1986. On receiving the report, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the Superintendent of Police, Dehradun vide his order dated 02 -01 -1987. After the chargesheet was filed against the petitioner and other persons in the court at Moradabad, petitioner stood trial in Sessions Trial No. 259 of 1987. Said case was decided by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad who passed the order dated 15 -05 -1992, acquitting the petitioner as the charge was not found proved. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner also faced departmental inquiry under rule 14(2) of U.P. Subordinate Police Officers (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. However, no charge was found proved in the departmental enquiry against the petitioner as he had been acquitted by the Court, and vide order dated 15 -02 -1994 he was exonerated. Meanwhile, the petitioner had already been reinstated in service on 29 -09 -1992. On 30th of May, 1994, he was served with a notice as to why his unpaid salary during the period of suspension be not held up. In response to which, the petitioner submitted his reply on 08 -061994. However, vide impugned order dated 12 -07 -1994, the Superintendent of Police, Dehraduli held up the remaining salary except the salary already paid, during suspension. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal under rule 20 of the aforesaid rules of 1991 before Deputy Inspector General of Police, Garhwal Region. Said authority also rejected the appeal vide its order dated 23 -03 -1995. Challenging the two orders, it is pleaded that both the orders suffer from illegality and the petitioner is entitled to full salary of the period of suspension after he has been acquitted by the court and also exonerated of the charge in the departmental inquiry.