M GOPALKRISHNA NAIDU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE relevant facts are briefly these. The applicant was appointed on the 1st January 1924 as an Overseer in the Upper Subordinate Engineering service of the Central Provinces and Berar, P. W. D. The Anti-Corruption Department received a complaint from one Salve, who had taken a contract for the construction of some work in the Takli Police Lines, that the applicant, who supervised the work, was in the habit of receiving bribes from contractors. He further complained that he was paying the applicant Rs. 150 p. m. and that during the particular month the applicant was demanding Rs. 300 out of which he had paid Rs. 100. The police then, with the help of Salve laid a trap and it is said that the applicant was caught In the act of receiving the balance of Rs. 200 on the night of the 12th December 1947. On the 17th December 1947, the Executive Engineer passed an order to the effect that the applicant be relieved from his charge forthwith and placed under suspension with effect from the date of relief. The reason for taking this step was that a charge of corruption was pending against the applicant. It may be mentioned that on that very day the Chief Engineer P. W. D. granted sanction under Section 6 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to the applicant's prosecution in respect of anti-corruption crime No. 111/161 Indian Penal Code. The applicant was relieved on the afternoon of the 17th December 1947 and arrested on the next day and then released on bail. A challan was put up against him on the 5th February 1948. Eventually, the applicant was tried and convicted and sentenced of the offence under Section 161 I. P. C. He preferred an appeal against this conviction and; sentence before the Court of Session and the Additional Sessions Judge who presided over it set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the applicant on the ground that the sanction accorded for the prosecution of the applicant was defective. This was on the 14th May 1951.

(3.) THE applicant made this application to this Court on the 3rd August 1951. The complaint of the applicant is that despite the fact that the conviction and sentence passed upon him had been set aside he continued to be under suspension which, according to him, was erroneous. He therefore wants to be reinstated in service at once and also wants to be paid arrears of his salary from the date of the suspension till the date of reinstatement.