UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOHD SHARIF KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 19-8-2005 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O. A. No. 557/04, whereby the petitioners were directed to reinstate the respondent, the present petition has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that respondent was initially appointed in Government Opium and Alkaloid Works Undertaking, Neemuch in the year 1972 on the post of Technician Grade-II. The services of respondent was confirmed somewhere in the year 1973-74. He was promoted as Technician Grade-I vide order dated 9-8-1982. In the year 1988, when the respondent was working as Boiler Attendant at Neemuch, a case was registered against the petitioner under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act and in consequence thereto, the respondent was placed under suspension vide order dated 18-3-1988. The respondent faced trial for the offence mentioned above and ultimately, he was convicted vide judgment dated 24-9-1990 passed in Session Trial No. 47/89 for a sentence of R. I. for ten years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. An appeal was filed by the respondent before this Court which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 444/90 and was dismissed vide order dated 11-8-2000. The respondent approached the Apex Court by filing Criminal Appeal No. 1003/2001. Vide order dated 7-8-2002, passed in aforesaid Cr. Appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the respondent.

(3.) DURING pendency of the appeal before this Court, the respondent was dismissed vide order dated 18-1-1993. After allowing the appeal by the Apex Court, respondent submitted a representation on 2-2-2003 before the petitioners with a prayer to quash the order dated 18-1-93 on the ground that suspension and dismissal of the respondent was based on the judgment of the Criminal Court and since the same is set aside by the Apex Court, hence the respondent is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages. This representation was dismissed by the petitioners vide order dated 26-8-2003 against which a Departmental Appeal was filed by the respondent. Since the appeal was not timely disposed of by the petitioners, therefore, the respondent filed a petition before the learned Administrative Tribunal somewhere in the month of May, 2004 which was registered as O. A. No. 557/2003 and contested by the petitioners.