LAWS(JHAR)-2017-6-68

ANUP KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On June 15, 2017
Anup Kumar Sharma Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Court: Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing orders dated 03.11.2004 (Annexure4 to the writ petition) and 15.07.2006 (Annexure5 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no. 2 by reasons of which the petitioner has been deprived of his salary and increment of pay for the suspension period, except the subsistence allowance.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner, who is presently an employee of the Government of Jharkhand, was posted as "Agnik" in Hajipur (in the State of Bihar) when he was implicated in a criminal case on 12.08.1992 with an allegation that he administered poison to his wife. The petitioner was suspended vide order dated 17.11.1992 with retrospective date i.e., 12.08.1992. However, the petitioner was finally acquitted from the criminal charge under Section 304B I.P.C. vide judgment dated 31.03.2003 passed by the Additional District & Sessions JudgecumFast Track Court No. 5, Vaishali, Hajipur, in Sessions Trial No. 38 of 1996. Thereafter, the order of suspension of the petitioner was revoked vide order No. 1118 dated 03.11.1996, but it was directed that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner shall continue. Subsequently, though the petitioner was exonerated in the departmental proceeding on the ground that he has been acquitted in the criminal case, yet vide impugned order dated 03.11.2004, it was decided that the petitioner shall not be entitled for salary for the suspension period i.e., from 12.08.1992 to 03.12.1996 on the ground that the petitioner did not work in the said period. Again, vide letter dated 15.07.2006, the petitioner was informed that he is not entitled for increment for the said period as the same has been treated as extraordinary leave. The petitioner also filed a departmental appeal, but the same was rejected on the ground that there is no provision of filing appeal when the delinquent has been exonerated in the departmental proceeding.