PRITAM SINGH Vs. NHPC & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During his availing casual leave, the petitioner was arrested by the police for his committing an offence punishable under Section 302, 382 read with Section 34 IPC. However, on 20.12.1999, the petitioner was afforded the facility of bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rendered findings of conviction against the petitioner for his committing an offence under Section 304 -II read with Section 34 IPC besides imposed upon him sentence of imprisonment of three years.

(2.) The petitioner standing aggrieved by the rendition of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala preferred an appeal therefrom before the High Court, appeal whereof of the petitioner assailing the rendition of the learned Additional Sessions Judge stood accepted by this Court. Also obviously, the petitioner stood acquitted of the charge for which he faced trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. On 31.01.2009 the petitioner was reinstated by the respondents. The respondents on being beset with the representations of the petitioner rendered an order comprised in Annexure P -3 whereby they ordered for regularization of the period of absence from the duty of the petitioner by granting to him leave of kind due.

(3.) Tritely, the petitioner stands aggrieved by the incorporation in Annexure P -3 of his period of absence being ordered to be regularized by his standing granted leave of kind due. The short submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in assailing the afore -stated portion occurring in Annexure P -3 flows from the employer/respondent imputing a fallible interpretation to Rules 26.1 and 26.2 of the NHPC Conduct Discipline & Appeal Rules (herein -after for short referred to as 'NHPC Rules') which flawed interpretation rendered qua them by the employer upsurges from a mis - reckoning by the employer of the factum of given his reinstatement in service on his standing acquitted by this Court of the charges whereupon findings of conviction stood rendered against him under Section 304 -II IPC by the learned trial Court, he stood entitled to the statutorily accrued full pay and allowances even for the period he remained under suspension. Since the petitioner remained off work since 13.5.1998 till 20.12.1999 given his standing subjected to judicial custody thereat, the learned counsel for the petitioner makes an espousal of the said period when he remained in judicial custody being amenable to a construction synonymous to his facing suspension or the period aforesaid ipso facto bearing a parlance akin to his standing beset with an order of suspension effect whereof when stood effaced by his standing acquitted by this Court for the offence for which he stood charged and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala entitled him to the benefit of the apposite Rules.