KAMLESH Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this OA, the applicant is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in deciding the suspension period as dies -non vide order dated 28.06.2010 (copy of which is stated to be not received by the applicant), communicated vide order dated 09.07.2010 issued in compliance of the directions of this Tribunal dated 02.02.2010, passed in OA No.3024/2009.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the applicant [a widow], who was working as a School Attendant in the MCD School, Mangolpuri, Najafgarh Zone, New Delhi, was implicated by her real brother in a criminal case under Section 323/341/34 IPC. She was placed under suspension from 28.12.1996, which was revoked on 2.11.1999 vide order dated 3.11.1999. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate punished the applicant under Sections 323 and 341. The applicant challenged the said order in appeal before the appellate Court, which was allowed and the applicant was acquitted vide order dated 4.03.2004. After the acquittal in the criminal case, the applicant made a representation for treating her suspension period as spent on duty but the respondents vide order dated 8.2.2006 (Annexure A -1A) restricted the payment for the suspension period to the amount already drawn and directed that this period need not be regularized by granting leave due to her involvement in the criminal case. An appeal preferred by the applicant on 27.04.2006 was rejected by the respondents on 29.08.2007 (Annexure A2) by confirming the decision of the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, the applicant filed OA No.3024/2009 before this Tribunal challenging the aforesaid orders of the respondents dated 8.02.2006 and 29.08.2007. A Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal disposed of the OA with the following directions: 8. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to reconsider the claim of applicant for treatment of the suspension period as spent on duty at par with Satbir, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 9. Before parting with, it is pertinent to mention that in case of acquittal from a criminal case the same has to qualify for pension as ruled by the Apex Court in N.V. Subba Rao v. Corporation Bank, 2006 (13) SCALE 287.

(3.) In compliance thereof the Appellate Authority passed an order dated 09.7.2010 treating the suspension period of the applicant as not spent on duty except for pensionary benefits. Hence, the present OA has been filed seeking the following reliefs: to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 9.7.2010. to quash and set aside the order dated 8.2.2006 and direct the respondents to treat the suspension period w.e.f. 28.12.1996 to 2.11.1999 as pent on duty for all purposes including grant of arrears. To direct the respondents to grant pay and allowances to the applicant of the suspension period with 12% interest. To direct the respondents to give to the applicant same treatment as given to similarly placed persons Sh. Satbir s/o Sh. Surtay.