Honble RAFIQ, J.–The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18th Nov., 2003 by which the respondents have denied to pay him any other emoluments except subsistence allowance already received by him.

(2). The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of LDC in Public Works Department (B & R), Division-I, Ajmer on 8.9.1962. The petitioner was thereafter absorbed in the RSRTC in the year 1964. He was then promoted on the post Junior Accountant. A criminal case against the petitioner on 25.4.1979 under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act was registered while he was working at Sri Ganganagar Depot. He therefore was placed under suspension and a charge-sheet was also issued to him. Subsequently however the charge-sheet was withdrawn by the respondent-corporation. The Anti Corruption Bureau, Bikaner filed challan against him in the trial Court. The petitioner thereafter faced trial. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the charges levelled against him. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court being S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 332/1984 and the same was eventually allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 18.2.2000 and the order of conviction and sentence was set aside. However, when the petitioner made representation to the respondents for demanding the amount of full salary and other allowance as per Rule 54(2) of the RSRTC Karmchari Sewa Niyam, 1965, the respondents by their order dated 18.11.2003, referred to supra, declined such benefits. It was mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioner while working at the Ganganagar Depot was caught red handed by the raiding party of Anti Corruption Department while accepting illegal gratification and therefore, he was suspended vide order dated 25.4.1979. The charge-sheet was also issued to him on 8.8.1988 Pending inquiry, however he was reinstated in service on 6.9.1989. Subsequently, the charge-sheet was withdrawn vide order dated 19.6.2001. For all these reasons, it was not considered proper to pay him full salary and allowances for the period of suspension.

(3). I have heard Shri Harish Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Santosh Choudary, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

(4). Shri Harish Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the petitioner has been acquitted of all the charges in the criminal case and the charge-sheet which was issued by the respondents was also withdrawn by them and there was no reason for not granting him full salary and other allowances. Only reason for placing the petitioner under suspension was the criminal case registered against him at the instance of Anti Corruption Bureau and when the charge against the petitioner has not been proved, the foundation thereof has now been rendered non-existent. Payment of entire emoluments therefore cannot be now denied to the petitioner. It has therefore been prayed that the writ petition may be allowed.

(5). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that according to Rules 54(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, which have been adopted by the respondents, it is the discretion of the authority whether or not to give full salary or other benefits during the period of suspension. In the present case, the allegation against the petitioner was that he was illegally accepting illegal gratification from a junior employee and was caught red handed by the Anti Corruption Bureau. The charge-sheet against the petitioner was withdrawn because he was facing criminal trial and since the trial was likely to take long time and he was reinstated in service. The petitioner was originally convicted by the trial Court, but later he was acquitted by this Court vide its judgment dated 18.2.2000, in which he was given benefit of doubt. This was therefore not an honourable acquittal. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner has al

Click Here to Read the rest of this document