Harbans Lal vs State of Raj. and Others

Govind Mathur, J.—By an order dated 22.01.2002 the Collector (Land Records), Sriganganagar placed the petitioner under suspension exercising power under Rule 13(2)(d) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. On being acquitted from the competent court for the offences punishable under various provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the competent authority revoked suspension of the petitioner vide order dated 25.01.2005. While revoking the suspension of the petitioner the respondents did not allow other ancillary services benefits including complete payment of salary except the subsistence allowance to the petitioner. A notice for demand of justice, therefore, was given by the counsel for the petitioner but of no consequence. Hence, this petition for writ is preferred seeking direction in following terms:

by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to forthwith release arrears of salary of petitioner for the period of his suspension i.e. from 22.01.2002 to 25.01.2005 along with interest @12% per annum.

Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon''ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that a judgment dated 14.09.2004 acquitting the petitioner from the charges of the offences punishable under the Act of 1988 is subject matter of an appeal that is S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2005, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of ancillary services benefits including the payment of salary beyond the subsistence allowance already paid.

I have considered the rival contentions.

By the judgment dated 14.09.2004 passed by the competent Court the petitioner has already been acquitted from the charges for which he was tried. After acquittal no reason survives to detain benefits of the petitioner including consideration for grant of salary beyond the subsistence allowance already paid. It is well settled that the order passed by the trial Court is final one till its alteration by the appellate Court. In the instant matter though an appeal has been filed by the respondents giving challenge to the judgment dated 14.09.2004 but merely on the basis of the pendency of the appeal it can not be said that acquittal of the petitioner at this stage is not final.

In view of whatever said above, this petition for writ deserves acceptance, and therefore, the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to allow all ancillary service benefits to the petitioner consequent to revocation of the suspension and his acquittal under the judgment dated 14.09.2004. The issue regarding grant of salary to the petitioner with interest is required to be considered by the respondents as per the provisions of Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 within a period of two months from today. No order as to cost.