RAMCHANDRA RANCHHODLAL PATNI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has made following prayer in para 8(A) of the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India: -

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Unarmed Police Constable on 20.11.1978. He was suspended on 18.2.1985 in connection with the alleged misconduct of misbehaving with the passengers under the influence of liquor, for which he was prosecuted under Sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and Sections 110 and 117 of the Bombay Police Act. He was acquitted of the said charges but in the departmental inquiry, he was found guilty and was dismissed from service. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.2294 of 1988. This Court ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service and other consequential benefits by order dated 2.12.1989. It is case of the petitioner that the petitioner was also placed under suspension by another order dated 1.5.1986 pursuant to Criminal Case No.122 of 1986 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. He was acquitted of the said criminal charges by the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.3, Ahmedabad by order dated 9.10.1987. The petitioner has averred that as per the order passed by this Court, in Special Civil Application No.2294 of 1988, the petitioner was taken back in service by order dated 14.12.1990 passed by the respondents, on the basis of which the petitioner resumed service on 29.12.1990. However, in the meantime, respondents issued charge -sheet dated 26.12.1990 in respect of the incident dated 4.3.1986 for which second criminal complaint was filed against him. In the said departmental inquiry, charge of only leaving the headquarter without prior permission was proved and therefore, the petitioner was imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment for one year vide order dated 17.12.1991. However, it was stated therein that the question of period of suspension would be decided after disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal filed against the order passed in Special Civil Application No.2294 of 1988, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service.

(3.) THE petitioner has further averred that subsequently, by order dated 3.2.1995, the respondents decided to consider the period of suspension from 3.3.1984 to 17.2.1985 in respect of the first incident as the period on duty but so far as the period of suspension from 4.3.1986 to 24.4.1990 is concerned, by the impugned order, the respondents treated the said period as period of suspension. It is the case of the petitioner that the action of the respondents in continuing the petitioner to be on suspension after the order dated 9.10.1987 acquitting him from criminal charges in respect of the second offence was illegal and the petitioner could not be made to suffer for the period of suspension till he was taken in service on 24.4.1990.