(•0-3) jndre^ 'mM^qg •^•a 'il^gsi^iiqo jo -IAOQ ^uom^jBdga 9nu9A9~a 'Xj^^9J39S OldlOUUJ •(qjB§siUBqq3) 'fesjo^ PI^SIQ '^9JO~3 '9§pnf SUOTSS9S PUB pl^SIQ ^UOI^IppV SB p91SOd ^U9S9jd ^V ('d'^) l^doqg 'UBM^qg qq^u^A '^XB^JIU^P\[ ''d'WJO ^A00 ^ugui^daa sjreyv 9Ai^isi[§9q pirc MBq 'Xj^^9J09S l^uoi^ippv ^m^qs "d'l uqs ("(I"F\[) Pd()l:[9 'v^m^WB]/^ '•(r^\[ jo -^Aor) ^usuiu^dga sjrejjy 9AI^lsl§9^ pu^ M^q Xre^joss - q§nojqi qssp^j^ ^Xqp^p\[ jo ^^s ^l •£ •z ^i.^^ -b^5^-v^^'^' sns^aA ...^^€?..^^" ('O'D) JndiB-a 'USTQ '^j^gmsg lisq^l 'm^^msg (uoisugdsns J9pun) .iBpnsq^i q^X^K 'sjugX /,£ ^noq^ p9§B 'gjq^^uita U^J^l[om^ °/S 'sjq^^uqa 1^1 •i9punS ^€^^ SlNaflNOJSM ^: •y saNoiiiiad iooz /s:s^^° '°M MOii-u-aj i-raM Hn<ISV^Ia IV H^IVOSIllVHHD AO I^IIOJ H9IH 3H1 MI, .2^\ State of Chhattisgarh, through - Supdt. of Police, Special Police Establishment Lokayukt, Raipur (Cl^i-^ftisgarh) 1 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA •S&SSg'S^Ss&s XI-HC-22 ;) sn^r-^T ^ f^rioF^n^T sft+ii^ <Mi^a + ^oc[ v^i<ii<n<^ ?R. •^t?Pre, ^wy &.S:..^y&i ^W^il *Nich'*" ' *""""^"*^'*'"TTI, 200 •fN^8T' 3T^T ^RTT^R ^rf^cT Gktvt heaijiag 14/7/2004 Shri V.G. Taaiaskar for fh^ Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, Application for urgent Learaed coiiasel for fhe name ofrespondentno.2 from fh|< Not opposed. The nanie fhe array of pardes. Heaid. The petitioner, who was an offence punishable under Sej; Prevention of Corruption Act, suspension vide order dated 2$ suspension, Hewashowever Durg vide judgment dated 6/3/; acquittal, fhe suspension was per Amiexure-P/4, fhe Chief revoke fhe suspension order of fhat notices on merits as weU fhe retura nor the reply has b^ pendiag since 2001, Learaed counsel for fhe that agam.st fhe acquittal of appeal before fhis Court, Leamed couiisel for fhe Nlaib cbl^fd41r1 ^i^i<nf ^ l^^l <pti^i< ^^Tf^m^TT^T petitioner. vt. Adv,, fpr fhe State. is aUowed. petitioner prays fdr deletmg ftie arrayofparties. respondent no.2 be deleted from Tehsildar, was prosecuted for stions 7-13( l)(d) aad 13(2) of the 1988. He was placed under ^/ 2/1999. He continued under byfheAddl. SpecialJud^, POO, It is submitted fhat after his revoked. It is submitted that as has also recomxnended to petitk>ner. It is also subinitted M.W, P. were issued but neifher ^en filed and the matter itsetf is acdiuitted ndt Mtnister tbe a^ Slate thje on fhe other haad subinitted petitionejr, State has preferred wl|iich is pendiag consideration. p^titioner placed reliance upon fhe p^tltic ['^ ^Psi^ XI-HC-22 /< 3TI^T'^T ^\ 'f^TW 31T|F?T ^RW^d -+ ^•ac[ ^l<41<rlct 7R. '^?[TIS, 1^<rtl^y 3n^?r 'q^? ^l^^l 5h^icn'** '* ? ^L 200 ^f^f' judginent of fhe Apex Court i^i others vs. Jaipal Smgh reportje< judginent of Gujrat High Coui|t Prenishaakar Joshi vs. State ol 2004 LAB. I.C, 271. It is submlitted view of the pendency of the crifninal was acquitted and no departDotc hini, fherefore, it is not open| farther suspension ta view of tiie order of acquittal. It is principle of law that if acquittal of fhe person concem^ departaient itself, perhaps differ^nt fi^Ulg fiirther prosecujtion In Mukesh Kumar (supra under: *'... It is required to be not and even at present.no against him. In that view oj jzistifiabte reason for the petitioner by revoking the pity that. since 2000, th Department to give him revoking the swpension orc yet, ^ithout ary jzistifiable revoked by the Departmen informed the petitioner, by that since Criminal appeal Sessions Court, the petitiof szispension. It is difficult prcfvision the Secretary has order ofacquittal, it \vas the <=hNf<rt1lil^ 'RW^lf "$ ft^t Tf^R$R '^^TNw^n^T — fhe case of Union of India aad 1 in 2004(1) SCC 121 aad the ia fhe case of Mukesh Kuiaar Gujarat aad aaofher reported ia fhat fhe order was passed in case, however the petitioner ental enquiry is pendmg agaiast for fhe department to continue of fhe crimiaal appeal agamst subnuLtted fhat it is a setfled |ion, which ultmiately resulted ia id was at fhe behest of or by fhe considerattons xnay arise, Gujarat High Court Jias jield as 7d that the petitioner is acquitted ^epartmental enquiry ts pending \the maUer, there is aKsohitety no pepartment not to remstate the ^spension order. It is a matter of petitioner is requesting the ctppropridte postmg j order by ^r in view ofthe acqttittal order; ^groun^ siispension order is not r^. Instead, the Depzdy Secretary ipUer dated lftk September, 2002 ^filed against thejudgmentofthe ^er is required to be kepf under fjp appreciate as to under which ^aken such view. Whenth^re is an [duty ofthe Departmentto revoke [^•y^ -.-. 6' r XI-HC-22 -g-sr -??IPIT?PT. '^w1?, ^ciwy 3n^?T 'q^ Hl*l^ll ^^^•;——'••—*'•••••'••"•••• ^^ 200 '^^T' 3TI^T^T f<rti<=h S^^ sft^ict» ^a ^ 3TT^[ '^<TT^R ^(^a +^y^ ^' -3 penc^ng the si^pension order in vi\ becazise the appeal is petitioner under szispensio^ order itselfis passed in vi^ case. The learned ad^ocaiefor t\ the decision of this Court I 2960 ofl997, which is anr^ 12. This Court has alsa cannot be conUnued under\ some complaints are pendi\ case, in view ofthe acquiU^ with the crimindl case; it^ is entitled to reinstatement revision application before t\ w of the acquittal order. Simply is no ground to continue the especialfy when the suspension y of the pendency of the criminal ^e petitioner has also relied upon in Special CMl Application No. ?xed^vith the compilation atpage tfyken the view that the petitioner [suspension under the guise that investigation. In the qforesaid ^l ofthe petitioner, in connection held that the petitioner therein ^respective cffhe pendency ofthe ^ Court." facts revok^d Havitig considered the on record and m view ofthe the order of suspension is petitioner. Siace fhe petition< pendency of the crmiiaal case entiUed for consequential benefit Subject to what has been disposed of, ConsequenUy, M.W.P. No. Certified copy as per rules. chl^<rt^l4 *+w<ytf^ fe^ xfa^$K '^^OT31:^T ^^ T T aad circuinstances, tiie inaterial afor^said judgnients, it is dirccted fhat firoin fhe date of acqiiittal of the sr was suspended during fhe ^nd he has been acquitted, he is from fhej date of acquittal, (stated abpve, fhis petition staads 1177/03 stands disposed of. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge [^^fe^