This an application for an appropriate writ in order to quash that part of the order of the Government dated 3-10-1962 by which the period of suspension of the petitioner has been directed to be treated as leave of whatever kind due.

The petition arises in the following circumstances :-

The petitioner was working as Block Development Officer in village Tral in 1957. Allegations of corruption and misappropriation of public funds having been made against him the matter was referred to the police under FIR No. 34 of 1957 as a result of which the police registered a case under section 409/420 R. P. C. against the petitioner. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested by the police and was released on bail by the order of the Sessions Judge on 8-7-87. According to the allegations made by the petitioner in his supplementary affidavit, he was detained in prison for seven days before he was released on bail. After investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the petitioner splitting up the allegations into four separate cases and the challans were produced in the court of the Additional District Magistrate Anantnag After taking the evidence of the prosecution before charge, the Additional District Magistrate Anantnag by his order dated 15-11-1961 discharged the petitioner in all the challans. Thereafter the petitioner was reinstated but he was given the arrears of his salarly during the period of his suspension and this period was to be treated as leave.

It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his case clearly fell within the ambit of Rule 109 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, and the Government was not entitled to withhold his full pay during the period of his suspension. The Advocate General pointed out that as the order of the Government was passed prior to October 1962, the case of the petitioner would be governed by the provisions of Rule 109 of the Jammu and Kashmir CSR as it stood before October 1962. On this point there appears to be no controversy between the parties.

Rule 109 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, runs as follows :-

"A servant of the State committed to prison either for debt or on a criminal charge, should be considered as under suspension from the date of his arrest and pot allowed to draw any pay until the termination of the proceedings against him, when an adjustment of his allowances should be made according to the circumstances of the case, the full amount being given only in the event of the officer being acquitted of blame or if the imprisonment was for debt of its being proved that the officers liability arose from the circumstances beyond his control".

The decision in the present case turns upon the interpretation of the words "being acquitted of blame" used in this Rule. The contention of the petitioner is that these words have been used in a wider and literal sense so as to signify that the servant should be exonerated from the charges or allegations levelled against him. On the other hand, the Advocate General has contended that the word "Acquittal" has been used in its well known legal sense and would not include an order of discharge. No authority directly on the point has been cited by the learned counsel for the parties. I am inclined to agree with the view of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true that the word acquitted" has been used in this Rule, but at the same time the word "blame" and not charge or offence has been used herein. This shows that the intention of the Government was to use the word "acquitted in a wider and general sense of the term and not in its strictly legal sense. There can be no doubt that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is a sharp distinction between "Acquittal" and "discharge" and in my view this distinction was not kept in view, by the Government when it framed the aforesaid rules, otherwise the word acquitted should have been followed by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document