SAMBHAJI WAMANRAO CHAVAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge Judgment and order passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (M. A. T.) in Review Application no. 65 of 1997 in transfer Application No. 1659 of 1991 (writ Petition No. 1131 of 1990 ).

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this writ Petition, briefly, are as follows :

(3.) PETITIONER was working as Naib Tahasildar in Slum (II) Thane. He was charged with an offence of accepting an illegal bribe of an amount of Rs. 1,200/-from one Shri Belose. The case was numbered as Special Judge at Thane. The said Special Case came to be disposed of vide Judgment dated 30th September 1986. The petitioner stood acquitted of the charges levelled against the petitioner. On 8th June 1988, the petitioner applied for regularising his period of suspension. He also applied for continuity of service. On May 30,1989, the petitioner received a Notice from Respondent No. 2, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why suspension period should not be considered as the period of suspension, without giving continuity of service. According to the said Notice, the Sessions Court had not granted a clean acquittal to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said Notice, the petitioner had made a representation on July 20, 1989 to the concerned authority by which the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner had been honourably acquitted and in the circumstances he was entitled to claim the benefit of continuity of service and that the suspension period ought not to be considered as a period of suspension. By Order dated 18th November 1989, the petitioner's representation came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by the said Order passed by the Collector, the petitioner preferred an Appeal to the Commissioner, Konkan Division, New bombay. In the meantime, the petitioner filed Writ petition No. 1131 of 1990, challenging the impugned Order dated 18th November 1989 passed by the Collector. The said writ Petition came to be admitted on 4th April 1990. After the formation and constitution of M. A. T. , the said writ petition came to be transferred to M. A. T. On 14th august 1997, the petitioner's Transfer Application came to be dismissed by M. A. T. In September 1997, the petitioner filed a Review Application which also came to be dismissed by M. A. T. vide Order dated February 20, 1998. Being aggrieved by the said Order passed by M. A. T, the present Writ petition had been filed. By the impugned Orders. M. A. T. came to the conclusion that the petitioner was given a benefit of doubt by the Special Judge, Thane in Special Case No. 20 of 1989. Under the above circumstances, the petitioner's contention that he was entitled to regularisation of suspension period and continuity of service came to be rejected.