THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER OF TELECOM (B.S.N.L.) PATNA Vs. BALI RAM SHARMA S/O LATE SHIV DHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.08.2013, passed by Patna Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 489 of 2010 where under order of compulsory retirement dated 24.01.1991, passed against respondent nos. 1, 2 along with orders dated 28.04.2007 and 13.03.2007, Annexure-4 series has been set aside. It appears respondent nos. 1, 2 were made accused in Special Case Nos. 08 of 1982, 66, 67 both of 1983 for the offence under Sections 120-B, 420 and other allied Sections of the Penal Code and Sections 5(1)(d), 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. After conviction of the respondents in the said case they were subjected to punishment of compulsory retirement under order dated 24.01.1991. Respondent nos. 1, 2 assailed their aforesaid conviction by filing Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 1991 before this Court and this Court heard the said appeal along with Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 1991 filed on behalf of the three co-convicts. Both the appeals were heard and allowed under judgment dated 22.09.2004, Annexure-2. After acquittal respondent nos. 1, 2 requested the authorities for grant of consequential benefit as during pendency of the appeal they attained the age of superannuation. Under orders dated 28.04.2007, 13.03.2007 such request has been rejected, against which respondent nos. 1, 2 approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench by filing O.A. No. 489 of 2010. Tribunal issued notice to the respondents and after having heard the parties under the impugned judgment directed the disciplinary authority of the respondents to grant them similar benefit, which has been granted to the co- accused also covered by order dated 22.09.2004, the employees of the Department of Post. Aforesaid order is being assailed before us by filing this writ petition on the ground that the Tribunal was not justified in giving the aforesaid direction as the acquittal granted to the two respondents is only on the basis of benefit of doubt.

(3.) Punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on the two respondents after they were convicted. Once conviction order has been set aside by the High Court under judgment dated 22.09.2004, Annexure-2, the disciplinary authority was required to have revisited the punishment imposed on the two respondents in the light of their representation. The representation having been rejected under order dated 28.04.2007, 13.03.2007. Both orders were assailed along with the order of compulsory retirement dated 24.01.1991 on the ground that other similarly situate persons, co-accused appellants in the connected appeal have, in the meantime, been reinstated.