RAJ PAL SINGH Vs. MEERUT DISTRICT CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The material facts in this case are these. On 27th Sept., 1975, the petitioner's services were placed under suspension by the Administrator of the Meerut District Co-operative Bank on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case under Sec. 409 of the Indian Penal Code and on the basis of a first information report, which was registered as Crime Case No. 53 of 1973, he had been arrested. The police on 31st July, 1986, submitted a charge-sheet. In this charge-sheet, petitioner has not been shown as an accused, instead he has been shown as a prosecution witness. The charge-sheet has been submitted against three other persons. The petitioner on 4th June, 1987, made a representation to the District Assistant Registrar setting out the relevant facts therein. That representation is still pending and has not been disposed of.

(2.) In the petition it has been averred that there certain enquiry officers were appointed to enquire into the charge against the petitioner and to submit their report. Every time they submitted their reports exonerating the petitioner. It has been stated that apart from the order dated 27th Sept. 1975, no other order of suspension has been passed. If these facts are correct, the legal position is also clear. Since the order of suspension was based upon some first information report and that first information report was investigated into and finally a charge-sheet has been submitted by the police and in that charge-sheet the petitioner was not shown as an accused, the order of suspension became bad upon the submission of the charge-sheet and was liable to be revoked. It is apparent that the petitioner is entitled to his entire salary from the date of suspension till the amount is actually said to him, of course, whether amount has been paid to him as substance allowance will be liable to be deducted. If, however, in the mean time another order of suspension has been passed then that would be another matter. If no order of suspension has been passed, even if disciplinary proceedings are going on, that will not affect the payment of salary to the petitioner.

(3.) Having cleared the ground we direct the District Assistant Registrar to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 4th June, 1987, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the order of this Court. While doing so, he will keep in mind the observations made above. If the District Assistant Registrar decides to reject the representation of the petitioner, he shall give reasons in support of his order.