ORDER :

I.A. No.11447 of 2018

Heard.

This Interlocutory Application is for condonation of delay of 480 days in filing the appeal.

2. We have gone through the application for condonation of delay and find that there was sufficient cause for which the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time.

3. Having regard to the averments made in the interlocutory application, we hereby condone the delay of 480 days in filing the appeal.

4. I.A. No. 11447 of 2018 stands disposed of.

L.P.A. No.754 of 2018

5. The respondents-appellants have preferred this appeal assailing the decision dated 27.07.2017 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5019 of 2012 by virtue of which the writ petition was allowed and the respondents-appellants were directed to release the salary of the respondent for the period commencing from January, 2012 to June, 2012. In addition thereto, the learned Single Judge has also directed for payment of subsistence allowance for the period of suspension within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

6. Brief facts, which would be necessary for consideration of this lis, stand enumerated as under :-

The writ petitioner-respondent joined services of Bharat Coking Coal Limited in the year 1980 on the post of E.P. Electrician, South Tisra Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad. On 31.05.2011, police arrested him in connection with Chas P.S. Case No. 170 of 2008, however, the writ petitioner was put to trial and was eventually acquitted by the Session Judge, Bokaro vide his judgment dated 08.12.2011 and thereafter, he was released from the judicial custody.

According to the writ petitioner, after his release, Memo of Charges dated 29.09.2011/01.10.2011 for his absence from duty was served upon him by which he was required to submit explanation in writing. It has to be kept in mind that the charge-sheet was dated 29.09.2011 and the writ petitioner was directed to submit his explanation within 72 hours of the receipt of the charge-sheet or, as a consequence, it was to be presumed that he had accepted the charges framed without any further reference to him.

This is further admitted fact, as learned counsel for the appellants has accepted before us, that the charge-sheet was never served upon him during the period he remained in jail custody in connection with the aforesaid criminal case. It was served upon him on 12.12.2011 only after he was released from judicial custody, which would be apparent from the joining letter of the writ petitioner, a copy of which has been kept for ready reference as Annexure-3.

The writ petitioner gave joining vide Annexure-3 but thereafter, for about six months, no information was given to him either with respect to initiation of any disciplinary proceeding by appointing any enquiry officer etc. or that having been dropped or his joining having been accepted or refused. It was eventually vide letter dated 13.06.2012 (Annexure-4) that the Project Officer, N.T.-S.T. Project informed the writ petitioner that he was issued charge-sheet on 01.10.2011 for his long absence with effect from 01.06.2011 and he was in jail custody since 31.05.2011 in connection with the criminal case but it appears that it has wrongly been stated in the letter that he was convicted by the Sessions Court as the writ petitioner was actually acquitted of the charges as would be evident from Annexure-1 which is the decision of the Sessions Judge, Bokaro. It has further been disclosed in the letter that his case was forwarded to competent authority, who, after examining the full details and documents, had allowed him to resume duty subject to medical fitness vide letter dated 06.04.2012. However, it is also stated that he will not be entitled to any wages or any other benefit for the period of absence.

The writ petitioner moved this Court by filing the writ petition with a prayer for release of his salary with effect from January, 2012 to June, 2012, i.e., for the period he wa