HAFIZUDDIN INAYATULLAH KAZI Vs. J C AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an ex-employee of the Bombay Port Trust (B.P.T). The petitioner was originally employed as a tally clerk and in the year 1970 was working as shed Superintendent Grade II. On 19th April, 1970 he was arrested on the charge of theft. On 21st April, 1970 an order was passed suspending him from service. After being convicted by the Magistrate, the petitioner was acquitted by the High Court on 5th/6th February, 1973. A copy of the judgment acquitting him was sent by the petitioner to the officer concerned of the B.P.T on 10th February, 1973. By letter dated 21st February, 1973, the petitioner was asked to resume duties, which he did on 22nd February, 1973.

(2.) On 14th May, 1974 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner intimating about the proposed departmental inquiry against him, based substaintially on the same allegations on the basis of which he was prosecuted and ultimately acquitted. On 10th March, 1975, the Deputy Docks Manager, addressed a letter to the petitioner intimating that the superannuation age had been raised from 55 years to 58 years and enquiring whether the petitioner would like to continue after attaining 55 years of age which he would be attaining on 18th July, 1975. Between 12th July and 18th July, 1975, the petitioner intimated that he would like to continue in the service. After about one and half year on 28th October, 1975, the charged against the petitioner were withdrawn. However, soon after withdrawing the charges as aforesaid, a notice dated 30th October, 1975 was served on the petitioner giving him notice of compulsory retirement under Rule 44(b) of the pay and allowances. Leave and Pension Rules, with the result that the petitioner was retired with effect from 1st February, 1976.

(3.) While in service the petitioner made an application dated 23rd January, 1976, to the Docks Manager for the salary that he would have received during the suspension period with yearly increments and allowances and other dues. The respondents did not give any reply to the said letter and the petitioner had to send a reminder on 15th May, 1976. Ultimately the Dock Manager by his letter dated 3rd July, 1976, referred to the said reminder dated 15th May, 1976 ignoring completely the original application of 23rd of January, 1976 and informed the petitioner that his period of suspension was treated as one of suspension and accordingly no further dues were payable to him. The said letter does not give any reason for arriving at the said conclusion, and is obviously not a speaking order and it was difficult for the petitioner to know as to why his application was being rejected . By a letter dated 7th July, 1976, B.P.T. reiterated that full dues were paid and nothing further was payable.