9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to suspension order based on acquittal in criminal case. 2. Interpretation of Rule 152 and Rule 156 in relation to suspension of a government servant. 3. Request for departmental inquiry post-acquittal. 4. Grievance regarding compulsory retirement under Rule 161. Analysis: 1. The petitioner was acquitted in a criminal case after the Sessions Court set aside the conviction and remanded the matter for retrial. The High Court later acquitted the petitioner based on the prosecution's failure to establish guilt. The petitioner challenged the subsequent suspension order by the Zilla Parishad, contending that the acquittal was on merits and not merely due to benefit of doubt. The court agreed with the petitioner's argument, emphasizing that the prosecution's evidence was unsatisfactory and the petitioner's explanation was consistent with the cash book entry, leading to an acquittal on merits. 2. The court examined Rule 152 and Rule 156 to determine the applicability of the suspension order. It was highlighted that Rule 156(a) mandates suspension of a government servant facing criminal charges until acquitted of blame. The court clarified that the concepts of 'honourable acquittal' or 'full exoneration' are irrelevant in such cases, and the focus should be on whether the government servant has been acquitted of blame. The judgment distinguished between general suspension rules under Rule 152 and specific rules under Rule 156(a) for cases involving criminal charges. 3. The petitioner's request for a departmental inquiry post-acquittal was denied by the Zilla Parishad, leading to a challenge based on the division bench decision in a similar case. The court noted that no independent departmental inquiry was conducted, and the petitioner's request for cross-examination of witnesses was refused, indicating a violation of procedural fairness. The court relied on the previous judgment to support the petitioner's position in this regard. 4. The petitioner's grievance regarding compulsory retirement under Rule 161 was found to be infructuous and not pursued during the proceedings. Consequently, the court did not delve into this aspect further. The final judgment partially allowed the petitioner's plea, setting aside the suspension order and directing the respondents to treat the suspension period as duty time, entitling the petitioner to full pay and allowances for the said period. Overall, the judgment focused on the legal principles surrounding acquittal in criminal cases, interpretation of relevant rules governing suspension of government servants, and ensuring procedural fairness in post-acquittal proceedings. The court's detailed analysis provided clarity on the petitioner's entitlements following the acquittal and suspension order.
|
