BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) & .pt^ Writ Petition No. /2:^ /2001 ^Petitioner ^j about 56 Tahsildar Secretariate .>\*^0t/^ BANWARI LAL SHRIVASTAV '- .k*^^^ S/o Shri Suraj Prasad ^^^J' / Shrivastav aged about 56 ^*''^,^^\c years, Nayab \f.x''^/.^^\ ( Suspended) p ^fS^^ l B'°pal <M'F') ^•' ^" ..-'j <>>'" VER S U S Respondent STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Through : Secretary Revenue Department, Govt.of Madhya Pradesh Mantralaya Vallabh Bhawan,- Bhopal(MP) STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Through : Revenue Department, Govt.of Chhattisgarh, D.K.Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitutional India. XI-HC-22 ^iT^r^T Rrli<=b 3Tlt?T S>t>*11cti <11^n .a^,^-' .-^. ^-•; •^L ^ -F3! •^TqRPT. ^ftWl?, faCTI'ay 3ff^?t xra'^ >L| ^.^te'2^^ 'WH^tT^Hicb '^(^s' Gojvt hes|ruig 14/7/2004 Shri V. G. Tamaskar for th^ Shri Saajay S. Agrawal, Applications for ui^ent Heaid. The petitioiier, who was N| aa oJ&nce punishable zinder Prevention of Corruption Act, suspension on 30/9/93. He cc| stated fhat as per Aanexure-P/ 1 j acquitted by fhe Special Judg^ 31/1/2000. It is submitted| suspensiou was not revoked. It| on merits as weU as M.W,P. werct fhe reply has been filed aad 2001. Learaed coiinsel fbr fhe fhat agamst fhe acquittal of fh^ Misc. Criminal Case for leave to pending consideration, It is Case was fUed barred by Umita1pi< condoned but leave has not been Learaed counsel for fhe judgment of fhe Apex Coiirt ia ofhers vs, Jaipal Siagh reporte^ <=hl4{<rt4l4 'RN^f "^W^ <^t^< ^"^+FOH ^l^F petitioner, rt. Adv., for the State. are aUowed. aib TehsUdar, was prosecuted for iections 5(I)(d) aud 5(2) 6f the 1947. He was placed under |ntiaued under suspension, It is he was relieVed, He was however ?, Saj^uja vide judgment dated titiat afler his acqiuttal, fhe I is further siibxnitted that notices issued but neither the retum nor raatter itself is pendiag siace tfte SKafe on fhe other haiid submitted ^ petttkmer, State has preferred ^ppeal l>efore fhis Cpnrt, whk?h te fhat fhough Misc, Criminal aad fhe luacutsrtion has been Igraxited. sjdtioner placed reUance upon fhe Ifbe case 6f Union of India and subdutted Ltation pe|dti( ia 2004(U SCC 121 and the [•q^^f^ XI-HC-22 ^-sr -?qFIRW, "^^FT^, f^<ni«*i< 3TI^T 'q^? *il^<yll ^bHlcn ^1< 200 f^T^T' 3T^T^T 'f^iwsn^T $^^ICt» ^^t 4 ^:^' ^' + 3>1^T ^<n8sR: ^rf^T —^- jzidgment of Gujrat High Cour<| Prenishaakar Joshi vs. State of| was acquitted asid no departBK hita, fherefore, it is not open principle of law fhat tf prosecu cbNi<ri<41'i Tn1[^f"? fe^ir <F3i'<^K ^3?rf^FT3n^T ia the case of Mukesh Kumar Gujarat aad aaofher reported in 2004 LAB.I.C. 271. It is submifted that the order was passed in view of fhe pendency of the crii^dnal case, however the petitioner ^ntal enqiirry is pendtag agaiast |for fhe departaaaLent to continzie fiirtihier suspension ia view ofj5Ii|ig of the criininal appeal agaiast the order of acquittal, It is ftufl|ie.r submitted that it is a setfled Lon, which ziltmiately resiilted ia acquittal of the person conceraejl was at fhe behest ofor by the department itself, perhaps difiFere^it consideiStl9ns may arise. In Mukesh Kumar (supra), under: "... It is required to be note^ and even at present, no d^, against him. In that view of\ justifiable reason for the petitioner by revoking the pity that since 2000, the\ Department to give him re^oking the suspension ord^y yet, ^ithcmt arsy justijiable revoked by the Department.\ informed the petitioner, by l^i that since Criminal appeal is Sessions Court, the petition^ suspension. It is difficult to\ provision the Secretary has order ofacquittal, it was the the suspension order in vie^\ because the appeal is pendir^g Gujarat High Coiut has'Tlg^>a& that the petitioner is acquitted i^partmental enquiry is pending \he matter, there is absolutely no E^partment not to reinstate the si^pefision order. It is a matter of petitioner is requesting the ^ppropriate posting order by in view ofth^ acquittal order; ^ound, suspension order is not Instead, the Deputy Secretary l^tter dated ]8t!t September 2002 ^iled agamst thejudgmentofthe is required to be kept under appreciate as to under whwh such vie^?. When there is an ^uty ofthe Department torevoke of the acquittal order. Simply is no ground to continue the t^ken [^t^ ^Rsi^ ^ XI-HC-22 ^T^T^T f<^i<=h s^\ $h^i<^ <if^a <.-- 'T X- ^ •3%r -^nqRR. ^N're, r6<^iwy 3TI^T ^S^K ^w<r\{ ^^^*——-—••———•———^^ ^QQ 'fN^ST' CT^T'^n^R ^Tf^T -3 petitioner under suspensior\ order itselfis passed m vie^ case. The learned ad^ocatefor tf\^ the decision of this Court 2960 of 1997, which is ann^f 12. This Court has also cannot be continued under some complaints are pendi^ ca^e, in view ofthe acquittd^ \vith the criminal case, it ^wc is entitled to reinstatement ^ revisfon application before t}\ especialty when the suspension of fhe pendency of the criminal petitioner has also relied upon l^ Special Civil Application No. cedwith the compilation atpage t<^en the view that the petitioner mspension under the guise that \g investigation. In the aforesaid <?f the petitioner, m connection held that the petitioner therein ^espective of the pendency ofthe is Court." Haviag considered fhe fact on record aad ia view of the fhe order of suspension is revoto petitioner. Siace fhe petitiom pendency of tiie cniaiaal case s entiUed for consequential benefits Subject to what has been disposed 6f. Consequenfly, M.W.P. No,2 Certified copy as per rules. <+N(<rt<lflT1 'RTR^Jf^ 'fe^t <Pn^i< '^'<3^m3TI^T aad circunistasices, fhe inaterial afor^said judgiaents, it is directed fhat \d from the date ofacquittal offhe |r was szispended durmg ftie ^nd he has been acqiiitted, he is froni fhe date of acquittal. ^tated above, this petition stands ^lb28/03 staads disposed of, Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge [Tft^ ^Rsi^t