GOVIND PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by which one Govind Prasad seeks to quash the orders Annexure 2, dated November 2, 1977 of the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway and Annexure 4, dated May 18, 1978 passed in appeal by the Chief Workshop Engineer, Northern Railway.

(2.) THE petitioner was serving as Tool Checker in Foundry Workshop No. 3, Northern Railway, Jodhpur in 1965. He was prosecuted on a police report under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and under sec. 5 (2) read with section 5 (l) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for misappropriation of 29 copper ingots. THE Special Judge, Rajasthan, Jaipur City vide order dated March 31, 1967 convicted him to 1 year's rigorous imprisonment under section 409, I. P. C. and to 1 year's rigorous imprisonment under section 5 (2) read with section 5 (l) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He was further sentenced to pay a total fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default thereof to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. An appeal was filed by the petitioner which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 1967 (Govind Prasad vs. State, decided on April 16, 1969 ). That appeal was accepted, setting aside the conviction of the petitioner ordered by the Special Judge and the petitioner was acquitted. After acquittal, the petitioner was reinstated in service. He was not paid the full wages for the period, he remained under suspension with effect from November 26, 1965 upto the date reinstatement i. e. July 15, 1969. THE Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Jodhpur treated the suspension of the petitioner as such vide his letter No. 14 Vig. /447/ 5pe/p. 1, dated August 24, 1970. THE petitioner filed S B Civil Writ Petition No. 3197 of 1977 (Govind Prasad vs. Union of India ). THE writ petition was allowed in part vide judgment dated January 21, 1977 and the order dated August 23, 1970 was quashed. While passing the order, it was observed: "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 persuing 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. " It may be stated that the judgment dated January 21, 1977 has been reported in 1977 R. L. W. 53. THE petitioner moved the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway for payment of balance amount. THE Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Jodhpur vide Annexure 2, dated November 2,1977 passed the following order: "keeping in mind the judgment of the Court, I come to the conclusion that Shri Govind Prasad's suspension was not wholly unjustified. He has already been paid subsistence allowance for the period of suspension and has thereafter been taken on duty, as ordered by the Court. For his suspension period, there is no case to pay him anything more than what he has already drawn as the subsistence allowance. He be however allowed full pay and allowances from the date of his acquittal (i. e. 16-4-69) to the date of rejoining the duty (ie. 15-7-69) and this period be counted as duty for all purposes. THE remaining period of suspension which has to be treated as leave due, if Shri Govind Prasad, so desires. " It may be pertinent here to extract the following portion from Annexure 2: "even in the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, the Hon'ble High Court did not use the word 'honourably acquitted", while setting aside the conviction. " An appeal was taken under rule 22 (3) of the R. S. (D. & A.) Rules, 1968. THE petitioner was informed vide Annexure 4 dated May 18, 1978 that the Chief Workshop Engineer has rejected his appeal. In Annexure 4, it is written that the Chief Workshop Engineer had carefully considered the appeal and had not found any justification to alter the decision of the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer (Works), Jodhpur. It may be stated that the Chief Workshop Engineer has confirmed the order of the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer (Works), Jodhpur, but it is a non-speaking order. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders (Annexures 2 and 4), the petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing these orders and has prayed that a direction may be issued for payment of the full wages to the petitioner from the date of suspension until he joined the duties i. e. November 26, 1965 to July 15, 1969.