CHESTERFIELD KHONGSHIT Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. B.K. Das, learned council appearing for the petitioner, as well as Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned GA appearing for the respondents.

(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for directions to the respondents (i) to pay of Subsistence Allowance i.e. 25% of his salary w.e.f. 01.03.2009 to 31.03.2010 as per the order of the Gauhati High Court, Shillong Bench dated 09.03.2009 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum (ii) to pay the full pay and allowance (back wages) with revised pay scale during the period of suspension of the petitioner i.e. from 12.07.2002 to 31.03.2010, (iii) pay the undisbursed salary of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.07.2002 to 11.07.2002 and (iv) also for quashing the portion of the reinstatement order dated 31.03.2010 i.e. "the period of his absence from duty should be treated as not on duty".

(3.) THE respondents had filed the affidavit -in -opposition wherein, the respondents are not denying that even if the petitioner had been acquitted by the said order dated 01.05.2007 passed in Session Case No. 5/2006, the departmental inquiry against the petitioner could not be completed for a couple of years. It is also stated in the affidavit -in -opposition that the petitioner had been reinstated in service because of his acquittal in the said Session Trial Case No. 5/2006 vide the said judgment and order dated 01.05.2007 passed by the learned Session Judge; and in nowhere of the affidavit -in -opposition, the respondents mentioned the reasons for the delay in completing the departmental inquiry against the petitioner. In other words, in the affidavit -in -opposition, respondents clearly admitted that the delay in completion of the departmental inquiry against the petitioner was because of the lapses of the respondent authority.