M.R. SHAH, J

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 12.01.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.16424 of 2016 (Arvindkumar Vijaykmar Mahajan V. State of Gujarat) by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said petition preferred by the appellant herein – original petitioner, the original petitioner – employee has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

2. The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeals in nutshell are as under:

2.1. That the appellant herein – original petitioner who at the relevant time was serving as Assistant Engineer was placed under suspension by order dated 30.07.2009 which was followed by a criminal case lodged against him under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as “P.C. Act”). A complaint came to be lodged against him under the PC Act with ACB Police Station and therefore, he was placed under suspension by order dated 30.07.2009. It appears that thereafter the review of the decision of suspension of the petitioner was done by the authorities and by order dated 04.04.2013, the original petitioner came to be reinstated in service. That thereafter by judgment and order dated 30.07.2014, the original petitioner came to be acquitted in ACB Case No.1 of 2010. Against the said order of acquittal the State has preferred appeal which is pending. It appears that thereafter the appellant herein – original petitioner submitted the application to regularize the period of suspension for the period between 20.05.2009 to 30.04.2013 by submitting that as he has been acquitted by the competent Court, the said period of suspension is required to be regularized. The aforesaid came to be rejected by the authority by observing and stating that what is required to be considered is that at the time of suspension whether he was rightly put under suspension or not. It was also stated that as the appeal against the acquittal is pending before the High Court, on that ground also the period of suspension is not required to be regularized.

2.2. Therefore, the appellant herein – original petitioner preferred the present Special Civil Application before the learned Single Judge for an appropriate order to quash and set aside the order dated 30.07.2016 to the extend the period of suspension i.e. the period between 20.05.2009 to 30.04.2013 was ordered to be adjusted against the admissible leave. That relying upon and considering Rule 70 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Joining Time on Foreign Service etc.) Rules, 2002 and considering the fact that appeal against the order of acquittal is pending before the High Court, by impugned order, has dismissed the aforesaid petition, which has given rise to the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

3. Shri N.K. Majmudar, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant.

3.1. It is vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case more particularly when subsequently the appellant came to be acquitted in the criminal case the learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the petition and ought to have directed the respondent authority to regularize the period of suspension from 20.05.2009 to 30.04.2013 and ought to have quashed and set aside the decision of the Department in adjusting the period of suspension from 20.05.2009 to 30.04.2013 against the admissible leave.

3.2. It is further submitted by Shri Majmudar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the learned Single Judge has materially erred in not granting the relief as prayed for on the ground that the appeal against the order of acquittal is pending. It is submitted that pendency of appeal against the order of acquittal cannot be a ground not to treat the period of suspension as regularized.

3.3. It is further submitted by Shri Majmudar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant relyi