(^',Me ZN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR W.P. No. S^o3 / 2004 1 /v l(y '•:'. "^ v. •^ PETITIONER :^\r ^•.. \^y/ .?f^ ^ RESPONDENTS : ^•^ ';^^ ^^ ^ // 51:^ Jagdish Pandey, S/o. Shri R.P.Pandey, aged about 63 years, Retired Sub-Inspector, District Police Force, Korba, R/o. Amraiyyapara, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh The Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, Police Headquarter, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, The Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh * i The Superintendent of Police, District Korba, Chhattisgarh The Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts & Pension, Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE rONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITIO N0.3503 OF 2004 Jagdish Pandey Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others .^ Post for pronouncement of the order on -^ dav of March, 2010 Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge M sii ^. ^^. sS^^^Sw •^y^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITIO N0.3503 OF 2004 Jagdish Pandey Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petitionunder Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. r'rf^ent:- Shri Lokesh Singh, oounsel for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (Deiivered on this ^2^ dav of March, 2010) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to regularize the period of suspension w.e.f. 1996 to 2001 and grant consequential benefits. The facts, in brief, which are germane, for adjudication of the case, are that on 14-10-1997, the petitioner as Sub Inspector was placed under suspension on account of registration of a criminal case for having committed offence of bribery. By judgment dated 30-9-1999 passed by the Special Judge (First Additional Sessions Judge), BJIaspur, in special criminal case No. 13/97 (State ofMadhya Pradesh v. Jagdish Prasad Pandey & Anothei), the petitioner was acquitted from the charges on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of accepting a sum of Rs.5,000/- as bribery beyond reasonabte doubt. It was further directed to refund a sum of Rs.5,000/-, after the period of limitation of appeal was over. ^ ^2\ i^&^y^ S. 1 m^'^ ^ ^ 't .-^ ^ '~^./' 3. The State Government filed an appeal before the High Court being Criminal Appeal No.891 of 2000 against the judgment dated 30-9-1999 passed by the Special Judge (First Additional Sessions Judge), Bilaspur, in special criminal case No.13/97, which is pending consideration in the High Court. However, the petitioner was reinstated in service by orcler dated 2-3-2001, as is evident from para 5.8 of the writ petition. 4. During pendency of the appeal filed by the State before the High Court, the petitioner made a request before the respondent authorities for grant of regularization of the period of suspension w.e.f. 1996 to 2001. The request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the question of regularization of the suspension period would be considered after disposal of pending appeal in the High Court. 5. Shri Lokesh Singh. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is entitled to regularization of suspension period on the ground that the petitioner was acquitted in the special criminal case by judgment dated 30-9-1999 and mere pendency of appeal filed by the State before the High Court should not restrain the authorities from granting regularization of the suspension period. S. On the other hand, Shri Bakshi, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State, would submit that pursuant to the acquittal of the petitioner in special criminal case, the petitioner was reinstated in service, though the petitioner was acquitted from the criminal charges taking advantage of reasonable doubt. 9\ -.T .-, ^K ^•y '-^•-^ ! However, the State Government thought proper to prefer an appeal, which was admitted and pending consideration before the High Court. The State Government in exercise of its power under Fundamental Rules 54 (b) (for short "FR") considered the case for regularisation of the suspension period, but the same was deferred till decision of the pending appeal in the Hjgh Court and, as such, there is no irregularity or illegality in the decision of the respondent authorities, which has not decided the case of the petitioner finally. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 8. The petitioner was acquitted from the criminal charge on the ground that the case against the petitioner could n<^ be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The criminal appeal is pending in the High Court. The petitioner or the respondent authorities ought to have taken steps to get the matter expedited by filing appropriate applications. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court about the steps taken by the parties in this regard. 9. Having regard to the fact that criminal appeal No.891 of 2000 is pending consideration against the acquittal of the petitioner, the decision of the authorities that the regularization of the suspension period of the petitioner would be considered after disposal of criminal appeal appears to be just and proper. The petitioner has not yet been denied the benefit of regularization of ^ 4 1 13- Gowri suspension period, as no decision has been taken by the authorities. 10. FR 54 provides that the competent authority is empowered to consider case of an employee with regard to pay and allowances during absence of the petitioner from duty induding the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removat or compulsory retirement after the employee has been reinstated. 11. In the case on hand, after acquittal in special criminal case the petitioner has been reinstated. The authorities have deferred exercise of the power under FR 54 till decision of the High Court in pending criminal appeal and, as such, it cannot be said that any adverse decision has been taken by the authorities. 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the action taken by the respondent authorities is unexceptionable warranting no interference. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 14. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK. Agniliotri Judge ^