LAWS(MPH)-2008-4-116

R.P. UPADHYAYA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On April 22, 2008
R.P. Upadhyaya Appellant
V/S
State of M.P. and Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts of the writ petition are in a narrow compass that a Criminal Case punishable under section 161, Indian Penal Code read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered against the petitioner in the year 1984 when he was working as a Tahsildar in Distt. Rewa. After due sanction, the case was tried and the petitioner was ultimately acquitted by the Court of Special Judge, Rewa in Case No. 12/94 on 1 -2 -1997 (Annexure/P1). Acquittal attained finality for want appeal by the State Government. A Departmental Promotion Committee was convened on 27/28 -10 -1988 for considering the promotions on the post of Deputy Collector from the post of Tahsildar. Petitioner's case was kept in sealed cover due to pendency of the criminal case whereas certain Tahsildars junior to the petitioner were promoted on 28 -8 -1989. After acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner made representation for his consideration for promotion which was ignored. He submitted O.A. No. 77/93 wherein the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated 23 -3 -1999 (Annexure/A2) directed the State Government to open the sealed cover and give effect to the recommendations of the D.P.C. within a period of three months. It was observed by the Tribunal that the principle of 'no work, no pay' would obviously be not applicable if the petitioner has been on merits honourably exonerated of the charges framed against him. But if he has been acquitted by extending benefit of doubt or due to non -availability of evidence due to acts attributable to the petitioner, then the competent authority shall pass an appropriate order regarding payment of back salary etc. keeping in view the observations made in paragraph -7 of the Janki Raman's case reported as : AIR 1991 SC 2010, Union of India vs. Janki Raman and others. Pursuant to this order, the sealed cover was opened and the petitioner was found suitable for being promoted to the post of Deputy Collector. Accordingly, by order dated 12 -6 -2000 (Annexure/A -3) the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Collector by giving him notional promotion with retrospective effect from 28 -8 -1989, that is the date from which his juniors were promoted as Deputy Collector but without pay and allowances. Petitioner was not aggrieved by the seniority which was correctly assigned, however, he made a representation for backwages w.e.f. 28 -8 -1989 to 3 -11 -1993 that is the date on which he tookover the charge of Deputy Collector. The representation was rejected on 23 -11 -2000. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred O.A. No. 837/2001 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal which on account of its abolition stood transferred to this Court.