SHYAM SUNDAR DEREY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. R. Nos. 237, 238 and 239 of 1961 have been lakon up together as common questions arc involved in these three petitions. The petitioner in No. 337, Shyam Sunder Derey, was the post-man, Sudhangsu Sekhar Bhattacharjee, the petitioner in No. 238, was the Post Master and Rajbahadur Singli the petitioner in No. 239, was the officiating clerk of the Post Office at Chengail. On the complaint of the Durwan of the Ludlow Jute Company Ltd., at Chengail, that these three petitioners had withdrawn Rs. 21,000/- from the Postal Savings Bank Account of the said Durwan by fraudulently obtaining his signature on the withdrawal forms, a criminal ease under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was started against these three persons. Shortly thereafter on 12-9-59, the Inspector of Post Offices placed them under suspension. On 22-9-60, the petitioners in the three cases were discharged as the police failed to submit their report After their discharge on 22-9-60, these three petitioners requested the Superintendent of Post Offices, through a registered letter dated 31-10-60, to revoke the order of suspension, to reinstate them and to pay them all arrears of salaries and allowances. In his reply dated 21-11-60, the Superintendent informed the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners were still under investigation by the police and that a decision in the matter would be taken shortly. Coming to know that a departmental enquiry against them had been started, the petitioners requested the Superintendent of Post Offices, through a registered letter dated 27-12-60 to let them know the result of the departmental enquiry. On 2-1-60, the petitioners were told that the departmental enquiry was still pending. Again another registered letter had been sent by the petitioners on 9-1-61 requesting the Superintendent either to reinstate them or to let them know the result of the enquiry within a fortnight from the date of the receipt of the said registered letter, but no response having been received, the petitioners have now come to this Court with a prayer for a writ of mandamus directing the opposite party to recall the order of suspension, to reinstate them and to pay them all arrears of pay and allowances.

(2.) In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent, the Union of India, it is admitted that the petitioner in each of these cases was placed under suspension on the 12th, 20th and 9th September, 1959, respectively, after he was arrested by the police on that date on the complaint of Raghunath Singh; that the police investigation is still continuing. It is further stated that on 4-7-61, that is, during the pendency of the present applications the petitioner, in each case, has been reinstated to his service and the order of suspension has been withdrawn without prejudice to the rights of the authorities to take up departmental proceedings against the petitioner in future and that since the order of suspension has been withdrawn, this Rule has been infructuous and should be dismissed.

(3.) Since the respondent has already revoked the order of suspension and reinstated the petitioners, the only questions left for the determination of this Court are: