A/ Q¥\0a\/V IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDECATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH 1/ WRIT PETITION No. M \ OF 200g , l Ramkishan, aged about 4O years, S/o 5hr! Ggpa! Rajak, re$ide.t of Kashinagar, Korba Chowki, Rampur, Police Station Kotwali, Korba Dist.Korba (Chhattisgarh) PETITIONER Bharat Sanchar Niqam Limited through the Chief Genera! RN i‘lal AAAAA Iagcl , I\II i‘iumuai. L Generai Manaqer (T&D) Bharat Sa.char Nigam Limited,!Bi!aspur \ui lf‘khnH-irnzu IIiCiLLIoyui h) \ Divisional Engineer Microwave Maintenance, Bharat Sanchar [\l' itigalll’LiiiiitEu, i M I. A DI uiiaSpUi‘ (Chhattisgarh) Sub Divisionai Engineer Micmwave Maintenance; Bharat CnaAkau Daliuial RI: Iwgam ILimiL'c‘u, L A nG’ (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22$l227 OF LFfE CONSTETUTIQN OF INBIA / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG AT BILAgPUR Wrlt Patitlog NO.141[03 Ramkishan Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited 8L ors. ORDER Post 1hr: S / 1 1/2004. Sdl- Fakhruddin Judge \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI3GARH AT 3M$PUR wm‘ Pmmm No, 141 OF 2993. ‘ Ramkishan Vs. Bharat Sacha: Nigam Limited 550th.“ Shri U.N.S. Dec, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, I Advocata, far the petitioner. Shri V.V.S‘ Murthy, Advacate for the respondents. Per Fakhruddln, J ' 0 R D E R. ‘1, lizard laamcd counscl for thc partica. 2. This petition under Articles 2Q6/227 of the Constitution \ of India has boon filed by tho pctitioncr on the yound that ho ‘ if has been acquittcd from the criminal Case and aftor acquittal he made various representations before the competent r authorities of the respondents Bharat Sanchar Nigarm Limited but he has not been allowed by the respondents m join his duties. 3. Briet1y stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on 17-5- 1985 and joined as Casual Mazdoor in the respondent department Bharat Sanchar Nigarm Limited rat Korba. It ie stated that the petitioner has been granted status of Temporary Status Mazdoor as per CasualLabourers (Grant ofTemporaxy Status and Regularization) Scheme. It is g ’0 further contended that as per the service mics/guidelines; on completion of ten years of regular service he isentitled ta be regularized as Regular Mazdoor. Learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to Annexure ~‘ P/ 1. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner conwnded that the Chief General Manager (Maintenance) Western Teleeom Region, Mumbai, accorded sanction for regularization of several persons who were working as Temporary Status Mamoor. As per Annexure — R14, 30 Temporary Status Mmrloor were regularized except the petitioner, whereas his ' name finds place at S.No. 29. It is also contended that even the persons junior to the petitioner have also been / r ”’l axemg regularized. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that one D.R.~ Patel lodged a complaint against the petitionenand an; offence under Sections 294, 323, 342 and see—B 01113.0. was regstered and the petitioner was arrested by the Police, ”'Korba. In view of this, instructions were issued by the Sub Divisional Engneer, Microwave Maintenance, Korba; vide . letter dated 12~9— 1996, Anncxure — P/2, toothc petitioner to the ell‘ect that he will not be taken on duty till the ease is tinalized‘ i: kt: \ M 6. It is also contended by learnedcounsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was acquitted for the offence by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, vide order dated, 30-3-2001, Annexure — P/3, in criminal case No.2225/ 19g6 (state of After the acquittal of the 43/ 91 ‘ petitioner, he submitted his joining on 22~5—2001, 15-6-2001, 6-8-2001, 14-9—2001, 12-12-2001 and on 3-10-2002 (Annexures — P/4, P/5, P/6 and P/7) before the respondent authorities but the petitioner was not allowed to join his duties. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to Anncxure -— P/9 dated 29-9-2001, wherein it is mentioned that though the Department had received information regarding the acquittal of the petitioner but the Korba. Court hae not directed for reinstatement of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has not been reinstated. It is contended that the petitioner was orally asked not to come on duty. It is further contended that nevertheless, after the petitioner was acquitted and the acquittal order was brought to the notice of the Department, the petitioner ought to have been reinstated. It i3 also contended that the refusal on this ground is not sustainable. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others Va. Jaipal Sing}: reported in 2004 (I) SOC 121, the judgment of Gujrat High Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar Premshankar Joshi Vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in 2004 LAB.I.C. 271 and the judgnent of this Court in the case of Sunder Lal Dhrttlahrc Vs. State of Madhya Pradeeh & Others (Writ Petitton No.258,3/2001) decided on 14-7-2004. 4 nx . <4/’ 9. In Mukesh Kumar (supra), Gujarat High Court has held as under: '... It is required to be noted that thepetitioner is acquitted and even at present, no departmental enquiry is pending against him In that view ofthe matter, there is absolutely n0 justifiable reason for the Department not to reinstate the petitioner by revoking the suspension order. It is a matter of pity that since 2000, the petitioner is requesting the Department to give him appropriate posting order by revoking the suspension order in view of the acquittal order; yet, without any, justiyiable ground, suspension order is not revoked by the Department. Mstead, the Deputy Secretary infomted the petitioner; by letter dated 18‘" September; 2002 that since Criminal appeal is filed against thejudgment of the Sessions Court, the petitioner is required to be kept under suspension. It is dwioult to appreciate as to under which provision the Secretary has taken such view. When there is an order of acquittal, it was the duty of the Department to revoke the suspension order in view of the acquittal order. Simply because the appeal is pending is no ground to continue the petitioner under suspension especially when the suspension order itself is passed in view of the pendency of the criminal case. The learned advocate fbr the petitioner has also relied upon the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2960 of 1997, which is annexed with the wmpilation at page 12. This Court has also taken the view that the petitioner cannot be continued under ‘ suspension under the guise that some complaints are pending investigation. 1h the aforesaid case, in view of the acquittal of the petitioner, in connection with the criminal case, it was held that the pea'tioner therein is entitled to reinstatement irrespective of the pendency of \‘ the revision application before this Court. ” 10. Shri Murthy, learned Counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the factual aspect that the petitioner had a statue of Temporary Status Mazdoor. In fact the department itself has filed Annoxurc ~ R/4, in which the name of the petitioner finds placeat S.No.29. The position 7 / which has been emerged is that the petitioner was working in the respondent department at the time when he was arrested for an offence punishable under Sections 294,‘ 323, 342 and 506—B of I.P.C. as Temporary Status Mazdoor and the persons junior to the petitioner have been regularized. The petitioner has been acquitted and order of acquittal has been passed. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to be taken back in service. The removal is set aside. 1 1. The petition is allowed. Kt ,> 12. Counsel fee as per scale, if certifiedV/ ,/6°"“dax“ »,/\ vex“