AJMER LAL PUNDEER Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short prayer in the present case is for direction to the respondents to release the back wages of the petitioner from the date of his dismissal dated 21.07.2006 to the date of his reinstatement dated 01.12.2009 as he has been acquitted and exonerated of all criminal charges against him and has been reinstated by the respondents with a further prayer to grant of all consequential benefits as also to release of the subsistence allowance due to him.

(2.) The facts, in short, are that the petitioner was a victim of unfortunate circumstances. He and his three family members were implicated in the death of his daughter-in-law and an FIR No.267 dated 28.10.2002 was registered against them under Sections 304-B and 34 of the IPC at Police Station Dera Bassi. Consequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension from service w.e.f. 06.11.2002 vide order dated 22.04.2003 by respondent No.1 under Rule 20(2) of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 pending investigation. In the order dated 22.04.2003, it was specifically clarified that the petitioner would be paid subsistence allowance as per Rule 21 of the said CDA Rules. The petitioner was released on bail by this Court vide order dated 05.05.2003. Thereafter, he sent a letter of request to the respondent No.3 for rejoining of his duties. Consequently, the petitioner's suspension was rightly revoked vide order dated 08.07.2003 and he was entitled to salary from the date of his joining. It was further conveyed that the treatment of period of petitioner's suspension would be decided after knowing the outcome of the criminal case pending against him. The petitioner, thereafter, resumed his duties on 23.07.2003. Meanwhile i.e. during the period when the petitioner was under judicial custody from 06.11.2002 to 05.05.2003, he was not paid any subsistence allowance as promised under Rule 21 of the CDA Rules. Meanwhile, the Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 06.02.2006 convicted the petitioner and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs, 5000/-. Respondent no.1 vide order dated 21.06.2006 dismissed the petitioner from service on account of his conviction by the trial Court. The petitioner filed Crl. Appeal No.165-DB of 2006 against the order and judgment dated 06.02.2006 convicting the petitioner. The said appeal was allowed by this Court vide order and judgment dated 31.01.2009. On being acquitted of all the charges against him, the petitioner requested the respondents for revocation of his dismissal order and for rejoining of duty vide his letter dated 13.02.2009. After a lengthy communication, the petitioner finally received an order dated 19.11.2009, vide which, the penalty of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 21.07.2006 was set aside with a further stipulation that the said order would be effective from the date of joining of the petitioner at Divisional Office at Chandigarh. The operative part of the said order reads as under:- that the period from the date of suspension/dismissal and his date of joining shall not be treated as spent on duty and no wages shall be paid for that period. However, the same shall not constitute break in service.

(3.) In view of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in spite of the order dated 01.12.2009 (Annexure P-18) stating that the period of suspension will not constitute break in service, the respondents have not released his back wages and had also refused to promote the petitioner on the post of Assistant Manager and that even the pay scale of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 16,510/- and the additional benefits of increment from 2006-2009 have also not been given. Even the subsistence allowance for the period of 06.10002 to 05.05.2003 have not been released.