SANDHYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge raised in the present writ petition is to the order dated 31.03.2006 passed by the Additional Commissioner in an appeal preferred under Rule 14 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (for short, 'the Discipline and Appeal Rules'). By the said order, the appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati dismissing the petitioner from service and treating the period of suspension as period of punishment has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher with Panchayat Samiti, Chandur-Railway. The petitioner's sister-inlaw committed suicide and the brother of the victim alleged that it was the petitioner who had caused the said victim to commit suicide. Hence a complaint was lodged and after investigating the matter, an offence was registered against the petitioner and two others. The petitioner was accordingly arrested on 18.09.1999 in Crime No. 139/1999. The said crime was registered under the provisions of Sections 306, 498 A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner remained in custody for the period from 18.09.1999 to 24.09.1999. In view of aforesaid, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the order dated 14.10.1999. In the criminal trial the petitioner came to be convicted by the judgment dated 30.11.2004 and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. This order of conviction was challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Appeal No.764/2004. In the meanwhile based on aforesaid order of conviction dated 30.11.2004 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 13.04.2005. In the enquiry proceedings the petitioner was held guilty and hence on 10.05.2005 the Chief Executive Officer passed an order under Rule 9 (1) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules thereby dismissing the petitioner from service. The period of suspension was treated as period of punishment. The petitioner being aggrieved, preferred an appeal under Rule 14 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules. The Additional Commissioner referred to para 4.6 of the Departmental Enquiry Manual as well as Rule 9(1) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Considering the gravity of the criminal charges and on the basis of order of conviction, the Additional Commissioner maintained the order of punishment of dismissal imposed by the Chief Executive Officer. Being aggrieved, the aforesaid order has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) Shri A.S.Dhore, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during pendency of the writ petition, the criminal appeal preferred by the petitioner being Criminal Appeal No.764/2004 came to be allowed by the judgment dated 25.04.2018. The order of conviction passed by the Sessions Court in Sessions Trial No.138/1999 was set aside and the petitioner was acquitted of the offences in question. It was submitted that the Court had held that the prosecution had failed to prove the allegations as made and hence acquittal in question was not based on granting benefit of doubt to the petitioner. Since the acquittal in question was a clean acquittal, the entire premise for dismissing the petitioner from service was washed out. It was then submitted that though notice dated 31.01.2000 along with copy of the charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner for the purposes of holding an enquiry, no enquiry was conducted nor was copy of any enquiry report supplied to the petitioner. It was his contention that as no enquiry was held against the petitioner and the order of dismissal was based purely on the conviction of the petitioner which order of conviction had been set aside, the order of dismissal could not be sustained. In that regard, he referred to the judgment of the Division Bench in Baban s/o Shriram Wafare Vs. Zilla Parishad, 2002 3 MhLJ 390 wherein it was held that on acquittal from the criminal charges, the employee was entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and other consequential benefits. He also referred to the decision in Capt. M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and anr., 1999 AIR(SC) 1416 in that regard. Attention was then invited to the affidavit dated 14.06.2019 filed on behalf of the petitioner in which it was stated that the petitioner was paid suspension allowance to the extent of 75% of her salary till March 2018 and that the petitioner was willing to relinquish her claim to the difference of salary in the event of her reinstatement in service. He also placed reliance on the decision in Babu Lal Vs. State of Haryana and others, 1991 2 SCC 335 in support of his submissions. It was thus submitted that as the entire basis for dismissing the petitioner from service had ceased to exist, the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated in service.