IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 9809/2008 Decided on:29.10.2010 _____________________________________________ Subhash Sood. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. ____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was appointed as Clerk/Storekeeper in the respondent-corporation in the year 1978. He was placed under suspension on 20.6.1984. FIR was registered against him and subsequently challan was put up in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra. He was acquitted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 judgment dated 30.3.1998. State preferred Criminal Appeal No. 395/1998 against the acquittal of the petitioner before this Court. The same was dismissed on 6.5.2002. This Court has categorically returned a finding that neither the entrustment nor misappropriation was proved against the petitioner. Petitioner was promoted after the judgment rendered by this Court to the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts), retrospectively with effect from 22.4.1989 after the sealed cover was opened on 26.10.2002. However, the petitioner was not granted the monetary benefits with effect from 22.4.1989. 2. Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar has strenuously argued that his client was entitled to monetary benefits with effect from 22.4.1989 instead of 26.10.2002. He has also contended that his client was always ready and willing to work against the higher post. However, it was due to pendency of criminal case and disciplinary proceedings that the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee were kept in a sealed cover. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioner is not entitled to monetary benefits with effect from 22.4.1989 to 26.10.2002. 3 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner, as noticed above, was charge- sheeted on 20.6.1984. His case was considered by the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion. However, the recommendations were kept in a sealed cover on 10.4.1989. Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner, which culminated into penalty of “censure” vide office order dated 28.7.1999. He was acquitted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra on 30.3.1998 and the appeal preferred against this judgment was dismissed by this Court on 6.5.2002. In these circumstances, sealed cover was opened on 26.10.2002 and the petitioner was promoted retrospectively with effect from 22.4.1989. However, he has not been paid the monetary benefits. The decision to open the sealed cover has been taken only after his acquittal has been upheld by this Court on 6.5.2002. Respondent-corporation could take into consideration the imposition of penalty of ‘censure’ upon the petitioner while promoting him. However, this fact has been over looked by the respondent-corporation. Petitioner was always ready and willing to work on the higher post, if he 4 had been promoted. His promotion has been withheld due to pendency of criminal case and disciplinary proceedings. He has been acquitted and his acquittal has been upheld by this Court. The penalty of ‘censure’ was imposed on 28.7.1999. He has been given the benefit of seniority with effect from 22.4.1989. The reasons assigned for withholding the same with effect from 22.4.1989 to 26.10.2002 are not tenable. The reasons assigned by the Managing Director are neither cogent nor convincing. He has made adverse comments on the judgment rendered by the trial court. He has recorded a finding that the judgment of acquittal reveals that the prosecution has not succeeded in presenting relevant evidence to prove the charge, however, to the contrary, the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge of this Court are that the prosecution has failed to prove entrustment and misappropriation by the petitioner. Similarly, the Managing Director of respondent-corporation has tried to over reach the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. He has recorded his own findings contrary to the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report. He has over looked the acquittal of the petitioner by the trial court, which was upheld by this Court. He has been 5 promoted despite the imposition of penalty of ‘censure’ upon him by the Disciplinary Authority retrospectively with effect from 22.4.1989. In these circumstances, respondent- corporation could not deny the petitioner actual monetary benefits of the higher post of Senior Assistant (Accounts) with effect from 22.4.1989. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is held entitled to arrears of salary etc. with effect from 22.4.1989. Needful be done within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 29.10.2010 *awasthi*