GOVIND PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by one Govindprasad. The facts giving rise to this writ petition breifly stated are as follows: -

(2.) THE petitioner was a tool checker in foundary shop No. 3 in Northern Railway Workshop at Jodhpur at the relevant time in the year 1965. He was prosecuted on a police report under sec. 409 of the Indian Penal Code and under sec. 5 (2) read with sec. 5 (l) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for alleged misappropriation of 29 copper ingots. On account of this case the petitioner was suspended by the Works Manager Northern Railway Jodhpur with effect from 26th of November, 1965. Ultimately the petitioner was acquitted by this Court by its judgment dated 16th of April, 1969 passed in S. B. Criminal Appeal No 219 of 1967. THE petitioner, thereafter approached the Deputy C. M. E. (west) Northern Railway Jodhpur, non-petitioner No. 2, and reported himself for duty. He was allowed to resume duty from 15th of July, 1969. However, no order was passed in regard to the wages during the period of suspension. THE petitioner felt aggrieved on account of omission on the part of the non-petitioner No. 2 in this behalf and made a representation to the non-petitioner No. 2 who by his order vide letter No. 14/vig/477/spn/ee dated 23-8-70 ordered that the suspension period of the petitioner shall be treated as such and only subsistence allowance be paid for that period. This order purports to have been passed under Rule 2044 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. THE petitioner being dissatisfied with this order moved the payment of Wages Authority by submitting a claim to the tune of Rs. 5,797/ -. This claim was allowed by the payment of Wages Authority by judgment dated 16th of June, 1972. THE non-petitioners challenged the order of the payment of Wages Authority by way of appeal to the District Judge, Jodhpur, who accepted the appeal and dismissed the claim by his judgment dated 14th of March, 1973, THE learned District Judge held that the order passed by the Dy. C. M. E. non-petitioner No. 2 on 23rd of August, 1970 was valid being passed by a competent authority. THE learned District Judge further observed that there was no room for importing the principles of natural Justice in this case. He thus held that in view of the order dated 23rd August, 1970, passed by the non-petitioner No. 2 no claim could be made by the petitioner. THE learned District Judge also observed that the petitioner was not fully exonerated under the High Court Judgment dated 16-4-69.

(3.) IN the result the petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 23-8-70 (Ex. 2) is hereby quashed. The competent authority i. e. the non-petitioner No. 2 is directed to decide the matter according to law as early as possible after giving notice to the petitioner. It may be however made clear that the observations of the learned District Judge that the order passed by this Court does not amount to honourable acquittal shall not be taken into account while passing the order under Rule 2044 and the competent authority shall decide the matter after perusing the judgment of this Court in an independent manner. IN the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs. .