BALRAJ GOYAL Vs. HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the decision taken by the respondents treating the period of suspension as not on duty but for all intents and purposes, treated as the leave of the kind due as contrary to the rules and justice.

(2.) The petitioner was an accused in a criminal ease on a complaint by a person, who was alleged to have been forced to make illegal gratification to the petitioner. Immediately after the FIR was lodged and the petitioner was arrested, he was suspended on 11th January, 2001. Alter a full-Hedged criminal trial, he was acquitted of the charges where the judgment of the Criminal Court reveals that none of the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution theory and even the self-serving statement of the Investigating Officer (PW 10) before the Criminal Court, who was over zealous in making his laid success is not worthy of giving credence. He was already given the benefit of doubt and he was acquitted of the charges and set at liberty.

(3.) After the judgement of the Criminal Court was pronounced on 7th January, 2005, the department took independent action against the petitioner on the same incident as constituting the charge for action. After an enquiry, it was found that the charges had not been established and he was directed to be reinstated in the service on 3rd May, 2007. When he-was reinstated, the period of suspension was treated by the office order of the Managing Director in the following words :