BIRENDRA PRASAD RAI Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed on the post of Overseer (Civil) on 11.01.1977 and was posted at Kedla -Gidi Washery Road Project, Kuju under the respondent C.C.L. On 12.09.1978, he was put under suspension pursuant to a prosecution lodged by the C.B.I. against him. Almost six years later, on 13.04.1984, he was served with a charge sheet in connection with the same matter. Two years after his submitting the show cause replies, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. However, within three months of the initiation of the proceeding, the enquiry against him was withdrawn. In the criminal proceeding, the trial court had convicted him. Against the order of his conviction and sentence, he preferred an appeal before the Patna High Court. By order dated 07.08.1998, his conviction and sentence was set aside and he was acquitted of the charges. Upon his acquittal from the charges in the criminal proceeding, by office order dated 27.09.1999, the respondents allowed the petitioner to join his duty and accordingly, he resumed duty on and from 01.10.1999 initially at Kuju and thereafter, at his transferred post at Giridih and later, upon his transfer, at Piparwar.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that but for his suspension and the initiation of the departmental proceeding, both of which were later unilaterally recalled by the respondents themselves, the petitioner would have been granted promotion to the next higher post on 11.01.1980 when his other colleagues got such benefits and he would have also received all the consequential benefits of promotion.

(3.) IN their counter affidavit, the respondents have wanted to explain that it was on account of initiation of the criminal prosecution against the petitioner by the C.B.I., that the petitioner was initially placed under suspension. Later, when the trial court by its judgement dated 07.03.1984 convicted him for the charges leveled against him, the respondents had initiated a departmental proceeding against him, after serving him the charge sheet. It is however admitted that the charges, for which the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, were the same for which the petitioner was criminally prosecuted and convicted by the trial court. It is also explained that only the memo of enquiry was withdrawn/cancelled and not the departmental proceeding itself as wrongly stated by the petitioner. The respondents acknowledge however that it was only after the petitioner 'sconviction was set aside in the appeal by the High Court, the respondents had allowed the petitioner to join his duty after revoking the order of his suspension. During the entire period from the date since he was put under suspension and till the date when it was recalled, the petitioner had availed his subsistence allowance. Later, his salary was paid to him with full back wages for the entire period of his suspension, after deducting the subsistence allowance which was already paid to him. He was also paid the annual increments and the service linked upgradation even though he had not actually worked nor was physically present for work during the entire period of his suspension. As regards the petitioner's claim for promotion and the other consequential benefits, the respondent's stand is that since the petitioner did not perform his duties and was placed under suspension for reasons directly attributable to him, he could not have earned any promotion and even otherwise, he cannot claim his promotion as a matter of right. Likewise, payment of quarterly bonus, ex -gratia, L.T.C., L.L.T.C. and earned leave is directly linked with the actual attendance put by employees for the work in the establishment. Since the petitioner did not actually work and was suspended on account of reasons exclusively attributable to his own conduct, and there being no fault on the part of the respondent company, the petitioner is not entitled to claim or receive any such monetary benefits.