K KUPPSAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner challenges the order of the Government in G.O.(D) No.32, Environment and Forest (FR IX) Department dated 7.7.2008, also seeking direction against the respondents to pay full salary and allowances with attendant benefits to him during the period of absence viz., from 9.7.1980 to 30.9.1982, the date of termination till reinstatement was ordered.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Forester on 29.1.1980 by Selection Committee and he was placed under suspension when he was working in the Extension Forestry Division I on 9.7.1980 by the District Forest Officer on the ground that he was convicted by the Sessions Court, Salem for an offence under section 302 IPC. A show-cause notice was issued by the District Forest Officer on 15.10.1980, as to why he should not be dismissed from service. A detailed explanation was submitted on 13.10.1980 by the petitioner stating that the petitioner filed an appeal before the High Court against the judgment of the Sessions Court and the High Court suspended the sentence pending the appeal. In spite of the same, the District Forest Officer terminated the services of the petitioner by order dated 4.9.1981 with effect from 9.8.1980.

(3.) The main ground on which the impugned order is challenged is that the order is against the Rule 54 of the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules. It is the case of the petitioner that the suspension period was not at all informed to the petitioner and no charge or no show-cause notice was issued before treating the period of absence as leave period, that when the High Court entertained the criminal appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Court, the High Court suspended the sentence and hence, the petitioner ought not to have been terminated from service and that the petitioner is entitled to have the period of absence to be treated as duty period since he has been honourably acquitted from the criminal charge and the principles laid down by the Honble Apex Court in State of Punjab & others vs. Shambhunath Singla & others [(1996) I SCC 296] have not been followed and therefore, it is discriminatory.