K RAGHUNATHAN Vs. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The petitioner would state that he while working as a Draftsman in the services of the second respondent, got involved in a criminal case registered by Katpadi Police Station, Vellore, in Crime No.503 of 2007 for the alleged commission of an offence under Section 420 IPC. The substratum of the allegation is that the Registrar In-charge of Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT) has preferred a complaint marked as Ex.P1 in the criminal case, stating that he has received a complaint through e-mail stating that the petitioner/A-1 has demanded from one Praveen Upala of Nizamabad, a sum of Rs.1 lakh for getting admission for his son viz. Raghul, in M.S. Software Engineering and believing the same, Praveen Upala deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner/A-1 and thereafter, when they contacted the petitioner/A-1, he did not respond.

(3.) It is further stated by the petitioner that he was also arrested and thereafter, was placed under suspension and the criminal case after investigation, has culminated in a charge sheet in Calendar Case No.67 of 2011, which was taken on file by the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Katpadi, and after a full-fledged trial, the petitioner was honourably acquitted vide judgment dated 18.10.2011, and no appeal has been preferred against the said judgment, and it has become final. The petitioner would further aver that he was also issued with a charge memo on 30.1.2008, on the very same set of allegations and has submitted his explanation and since it was not found satisfactory, Enquiry Officer was appointed, who has given his report dated 21.8.2008, stating that the charges framed against the petitioner, have not been proved. However, the second respondent-Disciplinary Authority imposed a punishment of postponement of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect and the period of suspension between 2.9.2007 and 19.4.2012, subject to eligible leave, was directed to be treated as leave on loss of pay.