LAXMAN R PINJANI Vs. RSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 18th Nov. , 2003 by which the respondents have denied to pay him any other emoluments except subsistence allowance already received by him.

(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed on the post of LDC in Public Works Department (B & R), Division-I, Ajmer on 8. 9. 1962. THE petitioner was thereafter absorbed in the RSRTC in the year 1964. He was then promoted on the post Junior Accountant. A criminal case against the petitioner on 25. 4. 1979 under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act was registered while he was working at Sri Ganganagar Depot. He therefore was placed under suspension and a charge-sheet was also issued to him. Subsequently however the charge-sheet was withdrawn by the respondent-corporation. THE Anti Corruption Bureau, Bikaner filed challan against him in the trial Court. THE petitioner thereafter faced trial. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the charges levelled against him. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court being S. B. Cr. Appeal No. 332/1984 and the same was eventually allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 18. 2. 2000 and the order of conviction and sentence was set aside. However, when the petitioner made representation to the respondents for demanding the amount of full salary and other allowance as per Rule 54 (2) of the RSRTC Karmchari Sewa Niyam, 1965, the respondents by their order dated 18. 11. 2003, referred to supra, declined such benefits. It was mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioner while working at the Ganganagar Depot was caught red handed by the raiding party of Anti Corruption Department while accepting illegal gratification and therefore, he was suspended vide order dated 25. 4. 1979. THE charge-sheet was also issued to him on 8. 8. 1988 Pending inquiry, however he was reinstated in service on 6. 9. 1989. Subsequently, the charge-sheet was withdrawn vide order dated 19. 6. 2001. For all these reasons, it was not considered proper to pay him full salary and allowances for the period of suspension.

(3.) IN the present case, the petitioner was initially placed under suspension only because he was caught red handed while accepting illegal gratification from a junior employee. The respondents also served charge-sheet upon him. There were several circulars of the Government, some of which have been placed on record in this case such as Circular of DOP dated 1st Sept. , 1997 and circular of Director, Anti Corruption Department dated 25th March, 1988, which provides that when on the similar charges the delinquent is facing trial, the departmental inquiry may not be held or suspended till the final conclusion of the inquiry and the employee may be reinstated because the trial may take a long time. It was therefore that the respondents decided to withdraw the charge-sheet. The petitioner was convicted by the trial Court vide its judgment dated 14. 9. 1984. The petitioner filed appeal against the said judgment and in the appeal this Court after considering the evidence on record, acquitted the petitioner by giving him benefit of doubt. IN the meantime however the petitioner having attained the age of superannuation retired on 31. 8. 1998. IN this manner, the suspension of the petitioner made on 25th April, 1979 actually came to an end when he was reinstated in service on 6th Sept. , 1989. It is only after he was acquitted by this Court that the petitioner made representation demanding entire pay and allowance of the period of suspension starting from 25th July, 1979 till he was reinstated in service on 6th Sept. , 1989.