Suspension regularization under FR 54-B based on initial justification, not acquittal nature; re-examination required absent disciplinary proceedings.

ORDER (Oral)

Per Mr. Manish Garg, JM:

The applicant has filed this O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

“(a) To quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated being No. FD/BB/Asstt. /K.C. Dhar/PA/07-08 dated 24.08.2022 issued by Senior Postmaster, Barabazar Head Post Office, Kolkata- 700007.

(b) To quash and set aside the Order dated 24.05.2016 issued by the Deputy Chief Postmaster, Barabazar HPO, Kolkata- 700007.

(c ) To pass an appropriate order directing the respondent authority to treat the period of suspension as on duty for all purposes including the benefit of regular promotion of such period and also release his all arrear salary and difference of subsistence allowance and all other consequential monetary benefits along with statutory interest.

(d) An order directing the respondents to supply the Account break up of the applicant since 01.01.2008 to till date.

(e ) To produce the relevant records in the instant case before this Hon’ble Tribunal.

(f) Any other order or further order or orders as to this Hon’ble Tribunal may seem fit and proper.”

2. In the instant OA, Learned counsel for the applicant does not dispute the fact that the applicant was suspended on 01.01.2008. The suspension was on the ground of a criminal offence and detention in police custody more than 48 hours. As per recommendation of the suspension review committee dated 18.09.2014, the said suspension order was revoked vide Memo dated 23.09.2014 with a condition that the period of suspension will be decided on the outcome of the Court case. It is not in dispute that no disciplinary proceedings were ever initiated by the respondents qua the mis-conduct, if any. It is also not disputed fact that the suspension was revoked as already highlighted above. On submission of the judgment of the Court Case dated 17.03.2022, the impugned order dated 15.07.2022 came to be passed which is the subject matter of challenge before this Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, apart from the order dated 15.07.2022, another Office Order dated 24.08.2022 regarding adjustment of suspension period of 01.01.2008 to 06.10.2014 is also under challenged in the present OA.

4. Opposing the relief claimed by the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments made in their reply and would contend that the impugned orders have been passed in right prospective as per the rule positions. He further relies upon the fact that :

“It transpires from the order of the Hon'ble Judge that "Prosecution has made attempt to establish that the accused had some infatuation towards PW-1 and he was persistently in a habit to extend proposal to her over phone and letters as it comes from cross examination of PW-6 that he did not make any investigation over this allegation. The then Chief Postmaster of Barabazar Head Post Office, Uday Kumar Bagchi was not examined. On this score, PW-1 has stated that she has communicated this matter to the then Chief Postmaster. Non-examination of said Uday Kumar Bagchi also gives a shake to prosecution case. He being the responsible superior official of the place where the alleged incident took place, could have put light on the actual incident if he would have been examined." - which clearly indicates that the exoneration was not on merit.

5. The justification given by the respondents qua the impugned order is that the discretion vests with the competent authority to pass appropriate order under the relevant rules, more particularly, Rule 54(b)(5) and Rule 54 (b)(2) of FRSR. It is also highlighted by the learne