( 1. ) THROUGH this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, (CAT), dated February 15, 2002, passed in O. A. No. 236/1997, whereby the order of dismissal of the respondent No. 1 (respondent hereafter) dated June 25, 1996, is quashed and the petitioners have been directed to disburse 50% of wages to respondent from May 31, 1984, till the date of his reinstatement in service, apart from granting him notional seniority in the grade with reference to his immediate senior and other benefits like promotion etc.

( 2. ) SHORTLY stated, the respondent was Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (edbpm ). The departmental enquiry was initiated against him, which resulted in his termination by order dated 25-6-1996. The grievance of the respondent has been that he was not paid subsistence allowance during put-off duty period, before his services were terminated and that despite acquittal by the Criminal Court in respect of same set of charges, departmental enquiry could not be initiated, therefore, penalty of removal from service could not be imposed. With this grievance, respondent came before the CAT seeking reliefs, which have been allowed. The respondent states that he was kept under put-off duty from 31-5-1984. The departmental proceedings initiated against him had ended with his removal from service. The criminal case before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur, had gone in favour of the respondent on technical ground. It was not an honourable acquittal, therefore, the departmental proceedings were pursued and the punishment imposed on him. Action taken against the respondent could not be faulted and the impugned order did not call for interference.

( 3. ) THE CAT examined two questions, namely, the respondent (applicant in O. A. No. 236/97) was not paid subsistence allowance when he was kept under put-off duty and when the Criminal Court had acquitted him on charges, which formed part and parcel of the disciplinary proceeding against him, the departmental proceedings should have been initiated against him. Consequently, the respondent contended that the departmental proceedings were nullity. Submission is that put-off duty period should be treated suspension, therefore, calling upon the respondent to attend the enquiry, without payment of subsistence allowance, would amount to denial of reasonable opportunity. After acquittal by the Criminal Court, initiation of departmental enquiry should stand obviated, in the light of decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sulekh Chand and Salek Chand v. Commissioner of Police and Ors. [ (1994) Suppl. 3 SCC 674]. The CAT found that the admitted position is that respondent was kept under put-off duty from 31-5-1984 till he was removed from service by order dated 25-6-1996, but he was not paid subsistence allowance during the continuance of departmental proceedings, therefore, the entire proceedings were vitiated, as per decision of the Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr. [ (1999) 3 SCC 679].

( 4. ) WITH regard to other question CAT holds that the Criminal Court verdict goes in favour of the respondent. He is sought to be charged in departmental proceedings on the same set of charges, therefore, it could not be pleaded that the respondent No. 1 was acquitted on technical ground by the Criminal Court. In para 9 of the order, the CAT has held:-

"9. We further would like to observe that this is a pitiable case where the applicant even after acquittal by the Competent Court which fact was also known to the department, had chosen to dismiss the applicant from service. This action of the respondents is deprecated and as a model employer they ought to have come forward to reinstate the applicant back in sendee soon after the verdict of the Criminal Court when the charges are one and the same both before the departmen