MANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition the petitioner seeks quashing of First Information Report No. 11/79 pending before the Special Judge (Forests), Shimla for offences under Ss. 409/420/467/468/477, Indian Penal Code read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) The petitioner has stated that he applied for Leave Travel Concession ('LTC') while he was posted as Extension Officer in the Department of Industries. Permission was granted and advance amount of Rs. 1,900/- was paid to him for journey from Shimla to Madras and back. Accordingly, he and his family members including his father and mother visited Madras by Bus as well as by Taxi. He was entitled to First Class Railway fare under the Service Rules, however, he hired a private Taxi from Delhi for Madras since he wanted to stay at Nagpur with his sister and his aged parents could not undertake long journey. The petitioner completed his journey during the month of January/February, 1979 and submitted LTC bill for Rs, 2,710/- out of which he had already received rs. 1,900/- by way of advance. Thus, balance amount of Rs. 810/- was receivable by him against which he was paid lesser amount.

(3.) A case under Ss. 467/468/471/477, Indian Penal Code read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against him for claiming false LTC. It was thoroughly investigated by a senior Police Officer who recorded the statements of the petitioner, his relatives stationed at Delhi and Nagpur and other witnesses including owner of the private Taxi. No offence was made out against the petitioner. Consequently, the Investigating Officer submitted a report for cancellation of the First Information Report No. 11/79. The report was duly scrutinised by the Special Judge (Forests), Shimla. It was accepted and the petitioner was discharged (Annexure-PA). Due to the registration of the case against the petitioner, he was placed under suspension vide order dated September 12, 1979 but it was revoked on May 4, 1980 due to non-progress in the investigation of the case. On account of the cancellation of the First Information Report, the petitioner requested the Department for the release of his pending dues and other service benefits which had been withheld for the past more than six years. The claim of the petitioner was allowed and he was paid entire arrears of increments, pay and allowance treating the suspension period as on duty under F.R. 54(2).