cymK •S\sft:S^Sjff^.^;5iS^^'^ :^Q:i5S. ip.ff»S-S"i3^S^ ^^bgi§si IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ATBILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.No. t^/ /2006 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Jamuna Prasad Shende S/o Late Bajrang Das aged about 58 years, R/o Shankar Nagar, Moti Chowk, Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. The State of C.G. Through :- Its Secretary Deptt. of Co-operative Society Mantralay, RAIPUR (C.G.) ate.. ^ % ^Vs^i. .<.€' 2. Registrar, Co-operative Society RAIPUR (C.G.) J^y ,^' > ^8'. 3. Joint Registrar, 0\li\»P»!'* ' O.y O/o Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society, Raipur Division, RAIPUR (C.G.) "PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/2270F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA" XI-HC-22 3II^(^iI k-Ufh SS^S snliti ^lf?H ~3Sf *<|i<(ici<i, aTJltflis, U-P-N'o. / 'S'^M00' WRWgffllIcS sii^i TOiiwcofeg S-4-20M Shri P.S. ttoshy with S9ri Vinod Deshniukh, counsel for Ule petltioner. Heard. Tnis petition under Articll ^fra^4h ^fi-l^ ^ t^^.^i^-^K ^T3lf:W3I[^T i^ 0'oKo^ n^i-niQ r^T? r^h^r*- A^irrir-o+^ f'nr' +^p> !>^+rsJ i^>lil'i i5ciL19ii 'v-TU-UUA, i^V . ^-KyVL. r^.U.VUv/ci.iA^ i.Ui. UiC Otfci.LC. ;s 226/227 of fhe Constitutipn ot india has been fUed by the pet^tioner on the ground that he has been acquitted from the crimiilal case and after acquittal he has inade various representations |3efore the corapetent authority ot' respondents for his reinstatemjent, but till date the respondents ftave not taKen any acuon appointed as Sub-Auditor in Co-operative Society, Durg Thereafter he was promoted on the representations ot ttie petitioner. The facts of the case.ar^ that tt-ie petitioner was mitiaUy |fhe oflice of Assistant Registrar, on 9-10-1973 (Annexure-P/i). |as Senior Co-operative inspector and posted in the office of th^ Assistant Registrar Co-operative Society (Audit Board'), -RaipTJiT, vide orfler dated 13-7-1998 (AnnexuTe-P/21. While woria|ng m Kaipur, tne-petiuoner was suspended. vide oraer clated Rule-9 ofM.P. Civil Services (() Rules, 1996 on account Qt q 38-8-2002 t'Annexm'e-P/3') nnder Ilassttication, Control and Appeat) ling of challan (charge sheetj by Lokayukta, Raipur, in Speci^l Griininal Case No. 14/2002 for committing oftence uiider Se^tions 7, 13(li(p| and 13(2) of the [4^^fe4 XI-HC-22 \ sn^i^T It;ti°h sn^r wqwdfta -S'vi ^iWvfti, whww, facjl'My HWWt ^KSWSfiM.:.S.:.M°.:...1S. 200 Prevention ol Corruption Act, petitioner nas been acquitt^ci (Annexure-P/4) by the Special dudge, Kaipur. Leamed counsel tbr fhe judgment of acquittal, the t|e1 juclgment to me concenaed order has not been revoked retnstated; - It is settled positiori of I^H reiaoved from service solelv oi|i was instituted agaiast hiui person is acquitted, the Uie petiuoner in service. Leamed counsel for fh^ decision offhis Court in the tfae State ot umiattisgarh and resportctents 2 offhe saidiudgmentisrelev^ 'I'S) Havincj heard\ , 1 jtfiCt. £Z7t QTiGT GppGT since the DepuUj Di-t the petitiorver firsm s\ a cnmm.al case wa3 •hl^'fl-i tiltlcif'9'fS'st^FaittfR ^sifiOTan^r [988. Atter compietion ot'triial, fhe vide order dated 28-9-2005 [Judge & First Additional Sessions ^etitioner submitted that acter fhe fleutioner torwarclect Uie copv ot lauuionties, but uie suspension ^nd fhe petitioner has not been l^w that where a pereon has been. )I|L ttie grouncl uiat a cnminal case in me saia cmninal case, me are duty bound to reinstate adid petiuoner piaced reUance on a c&se ot J-luKum CHand uaniare -v- lothers (W.P. No. 859/2004). Para mt ancl quotea below:- leamed coiinsel for the parties, ent on tHefaceofthe recordfor •ector, Panchauat had removed '"vice solely on the growidthat taunch.ed cifjainst tmn mul m the petitsoner is Honaratsly •rf'ti/i rt/f*^nf /tv^t^t»•»->/-»? /i»4re-/'> t,iftc- <?u.yL-i. <^-f uit.ui.t-tfc cicquittea., OT terrns ^f settled. iaw, the respondents \^^ ^Fia^ fSa-Bcsss ail^r^ [<•<[+ an^t ?b^l •^^ 3^^ ^ v ..< '-^^e^s?s~!S¥'SasS:ScSSStl;ffyS ;w^^'^|^|(.4i|j^^^s|;|^l-y'^^Wg% ^/';^.y3n^;TN^,:-:'':'~'':-'';, '. •^.sif<f.onM'fs:e:B<o •"••"•;"-;"-"^ 200 <4i»iiai"siy(irai iv^ss' .311^1 •^RIIW^te --?- -are duty-bound to service and the r•ealpon reinstate the petitior ff i-h Vtew oj Zhe maner, trte tmpugned order] if/»ft^j"«+/T'^'^? •rf-IE^/t •a^/i+f i-fv^ ^/c/tt.i consequentuu anct attendant ueneTils. MO costs.' Smular view nas been Union oflndia and others vs. telKen Oujrat High Court in me cas]e of Mukesn Ku.mar PremsnanK.ar Joshi vs. State ofCjujrat ccn.tt dfiother 2004 I.AB.Z^^TI and also DV Uus Uourt m ttie case ot Aiadnya lfractesn and ottters t\i IS'under Lal D'lwitlahre vs. State of have been relied upon by thii of Ramkishan vs. Bharat i Fw.P.No. 141/2003. in view of fhe above iudj facts ancl circumstances ot mentionect nereuiabove, anc| acquittecl, Uie responclents petitioner into service with Denetits. In the result the petitlonl cbi'qfo-tti1 'RTO^ff ^tt^ ^'<$R '^Slf^IHSD^t ; 'reinstate the petttioner into sori now given by them iiGt to er.'is tataliy unjustgied. Jn that f csllow ths writ petition, quash and direct the respondents to ioner in.to service with all bv HonDle the Apex Court m laipal Sm.gh 2004 fll SCC 121, w f.P.No.2583/2001). AU these cases uoiirt in ttie ctecision m me case anchar lvu?am Limited & Others sments and having considerea me ttie case, matenal on recora as since fhe petitioner has been are directed to reinstate ttie aU cpnsequential and attendant is auowect. NO costs. /\ Sd'- Fakhruddin Judge "l^rg^KsK IttlWtMl VSf W ^WWto i—mn» w» -*-^£^^...—^^s^- §^^ ^^ !_^t!imi1TiilUllunjininil va^S