RAVINDRA PRASAD MUNNESHWAR PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed Original Application No.2167/2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the case of the petitioner as well as the stand of the respondents referred to Fundamental Rule 54-B(3) and found that the suspension of the petitioner was not wholly unjustified. The acquittal in criminal case was after granting the petitioner the benefit of doubt and hence by the judgment dtd. 20/08/2019 the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application. Being aggrieved the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal in this writ petition.

(3.) Ms Kirti Satpute, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been hounourably acquitted in the criminal trial. In view of the judgment of acquittal the suspension of the petitioner from service was not at all justified and therefore the period from 12/11/2009 to 15/10/2014 ought to be treated as period spent on duty. Referring to the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) dtd. 16/07/2014 it was submitted that the trial insofar as the present petitioner and some accused was separated from that of other accused. The evidence on record led by the prosecution was found to be insufficient and therefore the petitioner came to be acquitted. The respondents were not justified in relying upon the opinion expressed by the learned District Government Pleader dtd. 21/05/2015 that the petitioner had been acquitted by granting him benefit of doubt. Reference was then made to the provisions of Fundamental Rule 54-B as well as Rule 5 of the Disciplinary Rules to urge that on the petitioner's acquittal he was entitled to reinstatement along with full pay and allowances. The respondents did not choose to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and hence there was no reason to deprive him of salary and allowances for the period between 12/11/2009 to 15/10/2014. In support of her submissions learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in Mohinder Singh vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited (2014) 2 CLR 321 and Commissioner of Police, Delhi vs. H. C. Laxmi Chand ILR (2012) I DELHI 46. It was thus submitted that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the Original Application and refusing to grant the relief as prayed for. It was thus submitted that the writ petition was liable to be allowed.