Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (11) TMI 862

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... w.e.f. 25.6.1998. He was released from jail on 1.12.1999. Accordingly, his suspension was revoked w.e.f. 12.01.2000 vide order dated 11.01.2000. He joined duty. 3. Finally, Sessions Court convicted the applicant to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment vide judgment dated 23.07.2000. Being aggrieved, he filed an appeal before the Honble High Court which was admitted. He informed the respondents about his conviction and filing of an appeal vide letter dated 04.10.2002. 4. At this stage, respondent gave him a show cause notice dated 30.04.2004 as to why he should not be dismissed. He replied that since his appeal was pending, no action could be taken against him in terms of office order No.201 dated 24.11.1954 till his appeal was de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .2010 on the ground that Office Order dated 24.11.1954 was not applicable because he was not convicted for any fatal accident/mis-happening during the course of his employment duty but was arrested in FIR No.76/1998 at P.S. Jafferpur Kalan, New Delhi on the allegation of murder and was sent to jail. He remained in jail from 23.7.2002 to 22.11.2004. Immediately after his conviction, he was again arrested and remained behind the bars till his appeal was allowed, as such he could not have rendered any service to the corporation. 8. As far as the suspension period from 25.6.1998 to June, 1999 and July, 1999 to 11.1.2000 is concerned, subsistence allowance of Rs.52,287/- has already been paid as per Clause 15 (4) sub-clause (a) of DRTA (Condit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Higher Court or not. Fines imposed upon drivers in challan cases on account of some defects or lack of some equipments in buses, will be paid on the spot by the management through the traffic superintendents or traffic inspectors. The question of taking departmental action against an employee convicted by court will be taken up only after the employees appeal has been decided by the appellate court. In cases where the employees does not file an appeal, the question of taking departmental action will be considered on the expiry of the period fixed for filing appeal. If an employee, who has been convicted by a court desires to perform duty in this organization during the period between the decision of the lower court and the appella .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nsel for the applicant. Applicant has not taken any other ground. He has also not disputed the fact that he has already been paid the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension and the he remained in jail throughout after he was convicted so naturally applicant could not have performed any duty while he was in jail. This aspect has already been dealt with by the Honble Supreme Court in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore Vs. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) and Another reported in AIR 1997 SC 1802 by observing as follows:- The reinstatement of the petitioner into the service has already been ordered by the High Court. The only question is : Whether he is entitled to back wages? It was his conduct o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... trial Court, he gets acquittal on appeal subsequently, the department cannot in any manner be found fault with for having kept him out of service, since the law obliges a person convicted of an offence to be so kept out and not to be retained in service. Consequently, the reasons given in the decision relied upon, for the appellants are not only convincing but are in consonance with reasonableness as well. Though exception taken to that part of the order directing re-instatement cannot be sustained and the respondent has to be re-instated, in service, for the reason that the earlier discharge was on account of those criminal proceedings and conviction only, the appellants are well within their rights to deny back wages to the respondent fo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates