LATA NARAYANRAO BARASKAR Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri S.D. Malke, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri N.H. Joshi, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 / State and Ms. M.P. Munshi, Advocate for respondent No.2.

(2.) The petitioner had been working as Auxillary Nurse Mid Wife with Zilla Parishad, Gondia since March, 1984. On 3rd May, 1996 Dr. Gedam (Medical Officer) lodged complaint against the petitioner that she had assaulted him with Trishul and he suffered injuries. On the basis of the complaint of Dr. Gedam, the petitioner is prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After the trial, by judgment dated 2nd November, 1999 the petitioner is acquitted.

(3.) The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that as she is acquitted by criminal Court and considering the opinion of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner should have been exonerated of the charges framed against her. It is argued by the Advocate for the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer had recommended withholding of one increment permanently but the Chief Executive Officer has directed that two increments receivable by the petitioner be withheld permanently and there is neither any reason nor justification for it. It is further argued that as the showcause notice did not refer to the proposed decision of treating the period for which the petitioner was under suspension as suspension period, the order directing that the period of suspension as suspension period is unsustainable. It is prayed that the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner be set aside and the order of the Chief Executive Officer be quashed.