N JOTHILINGAM Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by Mr. N. Jothilingam under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, to direct the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal Division to regularize the period of suspension from 20.1.1984 to 31.12.1990 as 'duty period' with a consequential direction to the respondents to pay the salary dues to the petitioner for the above said period and pass appropriate orders.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner was working as Village Administrative Officer at Patlur village in Tiruchengode Taluk before it was bifurcated from Salem District, was placed under suspension with effect from 20.1.84 on the allegation of embezzlement of Government money as per the proceedings in Roc. No. 19953/83(D) dated 20.1.84 passed by the Sub-Collector, Sankagiri. As the suspension order was kept unrevoked, the petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 2639 of 1990 and obtained an interim order of stay of suspension. In view of the said order, the suspension order was revoked by the respondents. After the revocation of the suspension order, the petitioner joined duty on 1.1.91. In view of that, the O.A. No. 2639 of 1990 was dismissed as infructuous. After some time, the criminal case initiated against the petitioner in C.C. No. 892 of 1989 also ended in his favour by order dated 29.5.92 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode. Even after the order of acquittal obtained by the petitioner in the criminal case, the respondents, without initiating any departmental proceedings, with a delay of almost four years, issued a charge memo dated 24.8.93 and again, purporting to correct the mistake in the earlier charge memo, issued another charge memo dated 3.8.95. Challenging the above said two charge memos, the petitioner filed O.A. Nos. 5992 of 1993 and 5815 of 1995 and the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by a detailed order dated 24.4.2002, quashed both the charge memos dated 24.8.93 and 3.8.95 on the ground that once the criminal prosecution launched against the delinquent ended in acquittal, on the same set of facts, there was no point in proceeding with by serving a charge memo, for the reason that the enquiry officer cannot come to any contra conclusion. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to the second respondent to treat the period of suspension from 20.1.84 till 31.12.90 as duty, but there was no response. After waiting for a long time, the petitioner was constrained to come to this Court by filing the present writ petition with the above prayer.

(3.) Arguing further, the learned counsel submitted that when it is an admitted case that the petitioner was placed under suspension from 20.1.84 till 31.12.90 and the order of suspension was revoked and subsequently he re-joined duty on 1.1.91, the respondents, in spite of repeated representations, have not passed any order to treat it as duty period. Now the petitioner also retired from service. Therefore, a suitable direction should be issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation in order to treat the said period as duty period with a further direction to the respondents to pay the service benefits in the light of the Fundamental Rule 54(9). Explaining further, he has stated that as per Fundamental Rule 54(9), a Government servant being placed under suspension in view of the fact that a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial or dismissed or removed from service on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge and subsequently, if he is reinstated in service on the basis of the order of acquittal passed by the competent criminal Court either on merits or on the ground that the charge has not been proved against him or by giving benefit of doubt, it must be regarded that he has been prevented from discharging his duties and the period of his absence including the period of suspension shall be treated as duty for all purposes and thereupon, he shall be paid full pay and allowances which he would have been entitled to, had he not been under suspension from service. Since the charge memos dated 24.8.93 and 3.8.95 issued to the petitioner were quashed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by order dated 24.4.2002 in O.A. Nos. 5992 of 1993 and 5815 of 1995, in addition thereto, the Criminal Court had acquitted the petitioner by a detailed order dated 29.5.92 in C.C. No. 892 of 1989, the period of suspension commencing from 20.1.84 till 31.12.90 should be treated as duty period.