SHANKARBHAI VIRABHAI RATHOD Vs. ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 4.4.1998 at Annexure 'F' passed by the respondent No.1, the present petition is filed by the petitioner praying that the decision of the respondent No.1 not to treat the period of the petitioner's suspension as on duty and give full pay and allowances for the period of suspension treating the said period as period spent on duty and also the decision of the respondent no. 3 to reduce subsistence allowance of the petitioner by 50% from the date of conviction by the District Court dated 5.7.1986 till he was reinstated on revocation of suspension dated 22.6.1995.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was employed on 27.2.1978 by the respondent Valsad District Panchayat as an Extension Officer (Agriculture) which is a Class III post. On 26.4.1985 a complaint was lodged against the petitioner at Valsad Police Station bearing CR No.4/85 for offences punishable under section 161 of Indian Penal Code with sections 5 (1)(c), 5 (1) (d) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegation against the petitioner was of taking Rs. 200/- as illegal gratification. The complainant-Mavjibhai did not want to oblige the accused by giving bribe and therefore, on 28.4.1985 he had gone to the ACB office at Valsad and lodged FIR being CR No.4/85 for the offences as aforesaid. On 21.9.1985 the petitioner was suspended by the respondent No.3 with effect from 24.9.1985 on account of pendency of Criminal Complaint of corruption against him. On 5.7.1986 the District Court at Valsad being a Special Court hearing corruption matters concluded against the petitioner holding him guilty for commission of offences alleged against him in Special Case No.2/86.The appeal filed before the High Court was admitted and the petitioner was enlarged on bail. The respondents passed an order reducing the amount of subsistence allowance being paid to the petitioner by 50%. By order dated 22.9.1994, the High Court acquitted the petitioner of the charges levelled against him. Against this order no appeal was preferred by the other side. The petitioner made an application along with the order of acquittal for reinstatement with immediate effect and payment of remaining amount of pay and allowances. He was reinstated by the respondents after affording an opportunity of hearing. The respondent No.3 passed an order treating the period of suspension not on duty while justifying the order of suspension and also passed an order refusing to pay any pay and allowances for the period of suspension. On 16.6.1997 the respondent Commissioner in an appeal passed an order partially allowing the appeal of the petitioner preferred against the order passed by the respondent No.3 and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration on merit. On 2.12.1997, the respondent No.3, after hearing the petitioner passed order that the suspension of the petitioner as on date and time was not wholly unjustified and treating the period of suspension not on duty and also refused to pay any allowances for the said period. On 4.4.1998 the respondent No.1 Commissioner passed an order in appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of respondent No.3 and by the same the respondent No.3-Commissioner rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of respondent No.3. Hence this petition.

(3.) Heard the learned Advocate Mr B R Gupta, for the petitioner, Mr L R Pujari, learned AGP for respondent No.1 and 2 and Mr P B Jadeja appearing for Mr D C Dave, learned Advocate for respondent No.3.