l‘S i { §§EFGRE THE! EON’B’EE HIGH G61??? 6F W§IGAT1§RE AT E i AS?§R ' ¥ 1 i ~‘I-N THE MAmERV OF y « ‘ i w.P‘Na 4..3 /2904 E < i y l ' %PE$I$IQNER:~ SANTQSH‘ KUMARV ASATIV 1 Sfrn} LATE SHRI GAYAPRA-SAD— AGED 42-YEARS', ' SUB» ENGINEER-{UNDER- susPENSIQN): RES (’PMgsm BI-LASPUR, R-[Q F—4, PARJJATCQLQNY, NEH-RU- NAGAR; AMER} RD; BILAsPUR- (€;G)- VERSUS TATE QEC. ATTIS‘GARH HRG ,s—EGRETAR» TQTH—E DEPARCFMENTV S OF TQANGHA A? Aim—3 “RUFAL WELFARE, DKS ANTRALAYA BHAVAN GE. RQA RALPUR— (Gigi), : DEVELQPMENP:CQMISSIQ-NE PANCHMAT & GRAMIN V WKAS VIBH-AG, RAIPUR ($1.6). 1 ' MA?“ TIT- ?E'EASE YG‘U-R EGRESHI? ‘ ;BARH€%ARS 9F rim- 1 P , S TUGH- T Y D, R, Wham WW$$§W.R ' '7 zoo¢_'\ ' i ‘é ‘ a“ WW§WW aswanéw ’ 20.4.2005 On a mention being made he case is'taken up for hearing. Mr Pradeep Saksena, coun e! forthe petitioner Mr Sandeep Dubey, Govt dvocate for the State/respondents The petitioner has preferre this writ petrtron under Article 226f227 0f th Ccnstrtutron of India que mamatw g the prophety of the dealswn of the} eondents not to reinstate the petitioner and recallmg the suspensmn ‘ de a r orr dated 28-10-2002 even the acquittal of the petrtroner by the r 'Addr 2 m a case under the Pre I red to as the Act) Brief facts ieadlng to fling f this writ petition are that at the retevant > the petitioner was workmg s Sub E'gmeér m the Rura! Engmeermg $1ces at Btlaspur when a pros cutlon was taunched against the petitionet :_ erv he commrssron of effence und r Sectlons 7 & 13 (1) (d) read With Sectlon f ‘ ' ) of the Act for taking bnbe ‘f Rs 7 OOGI- from Shyamlal on 216-2001 ‘ ' account of the prosecution of the petitioner m the said offence the, opetent authorlty placed the p tmoner under suspensron vtde cider dated 28 10-2002 However after co pletron of that the learned Special Judge ‘ Bilaspur vrde hrs judgment dated 9-12-2003 acqurtted the petmoner hotdrng ‘ that It has not been proved that e accused as a pubho servant has made » ' any demand for money and recer ed money as a result of whrch no crrmrnal a ’- mtsconduct of the accused has b en proved! Accordingly, the petrtloner was acquitted Thereafter the p trtroner m’oved the Secretary and the d Development Commrssroner for ernstatement however the petitioner has not been reinstated on the groun that the State Government has preferre Kan appeal agarnst the tudgmexnt o acquittal dated 29-1 2-200 M tlonal Drstrrct Judge Bilaspu vrde his judgment dated 29‘“ December (on; of Corruptuon Act, 1988 (hereinafter Irefer i J ? > ttme I; ! 3 e str 003 v 3. . m rsp r' for t 13 (2 On cm XI—Hc‘zz L § ? ‘ The petitioner‘s case is th at'such a decxsmn of the respondents is contrary to the law When the pet Ioner has been acquitted the respondents are bound to reinstate the petition L r Mere t'ihng of the appeal is not sufFclent. for keeping the petitioner under s spensron The petitioner has also prayed , for fuu back wages and also the co sequentral benefits - Return has been fled on half of the Slate/respondents In which it has been mentioned that since a peal has been flled against the acqurttal therefore the petrtloner ls not entitl d for reinstatement l have heard learned couns lfor the partres Learned counsel for the etmoner submitted that after acqurttal the 'I petitioner is entitled for reinstatem 'it ac weti as fuii back wages, and also the > consequentiai benefts ‘ . ~ I On the other hand Mr S ndeep Dubey. learned Govt Advocate for g the State of Chhattisgarh argued hat as the State Government has aiready I preferred an appeat against the a quittal before the High Court and untrt that appeal ls declded the petitioner i referred to the State Governmen s curcuiar dated 15-12 1979 and argued that even after acquittal the petiti ner is not entitled for reinstatement as the appeal has been preferred Havmg heard learned no nsei for the parties l have perused the 1 record lt rs not disputed that t e petrtioner has been acurtted from the is also not disputed that for tha, misconduct no departmental enquiry has V been initiated or pendrng against the petittoner The only defence taken by I the State Government/responden ‘ is that appeal has been preferred against 1'7. ' ~‘ the orderofacquittal _ w : r I p I VFW * not entitled for reinstatement He further ;, q X-c—z IHz m .‘.‘. @Tmmm ' N3“ is njot ' In a my ground considered forkeeping opinion the there petmoner preferring under an éontinuous éppeai against suspension acquittal énqtiiiry Onc'é the has petitig’nerk’iks'acquittved been initiated against fvom him the for criminal the misconduct, céSe and then no the ciepartmenta petitioner is enftitied fofreinetat‘ement. ', \ wajshot $p;eciai;C_9murt reinstated; asno‘v, then eyi‘menc'e‘Vjw he a oacheq , preduceci’ the :bytheQ’Bi-fbut High Coul‘rt underthe the petitiqner writ Jurisdiction andthe High Court e that I V/ I , ‘ "The,'order of Isu nsie v'mé’d‘e pending criminai investigation’came an end with ithe discharge of the r . ' the order oZf suspension is set Saiary aside-and including the im‘ ‘ai gement arrears to is directed the petitioner to pay’fuii after deduction of the sub istence allowehce paid.” _ L Simiiar view has been ta n by‘GujaratEHigh Court in the matter of Mukee,hkumar Premeh‘an‘ker’r ehi v. State§Kof Gujarat and anotherf,‘ reported inj 20047LAe'i;i.lc. 271, in which iheiCoun’ heid‘ that where the h iy ' accused has been acquitted and o departmen i enquiry is pending against ir 5 im in that View of the matter the e is ‘absolutg‘ ‘ justihabie rea‘sonkf’or the Department notto reinstate the ‘ itioner by revokig the Suspension order. s Sihrivastava Simiiar View has vs. aiso State been of M.P. take by d another this Court in ir'i V;V.P,No.1220/2001, the matter of Banwari decided Lat ‘ ' ; 4 ’ a n , V on 14-7-2094, reported in 2004( M.P,.H.T. 5396). ‘ ~-\.r.e/" a» I i i i i i i i " V i p s r hi E e t a a té WWW ' "4" mama“ Theréfore’ 'mefe fliing an appeal against the juégment of tnal Court ‘s L ‘e suspenswn order unless the appeai :s liowed and the petitioner is c nvncted smce prosecutton was launched against the petmonet m conne 'on With the discharge of his duties and the petmoner has been acquitted th refore ! am of the opinion that the petitioner also entitied for fun back wag s and consequentia! benefts of course after deducting the subSIstence alto nce and other allowances aheady patd to tn the reeuit, this writ ltion is a‘llowad and the respo'ndentsare directed to consider the remsta ment of the petmoner as also the payment of full back wages and other consequential benefts after deductlng the amount of subsxstence allowanc already paid to the petitioner o ground for continuation of him. . in vrew of this order M ‘ P No 4428;2004 stands disposed of/ M ” _ (team? 1s ‘ 1 v I»; 'f_ i h n a p t I: ) ’