Honourable acquittal on merits entitles full pay for intervening suspension/dismissal period under FR 54-A(3), not technical acquittal under FR 54-A(2)(i).

Order

By Smt. Mallika Arya, AM.

This Original application has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 05.03.2013 (Annexure A/23) passed by respondent no. 1.

2. Briefly, the case of the applicant as projected in the original application is that, on 03.09.1986, the Lokayukt registered an offence punishable u/s 161 of I.P.C. as also u/s 5 (1)(d) R/W Sec 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on the allegations that the applicant was found in possession of Rs.500/- which was an illegal gratification. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the court of Special Judge, Jabalpur. The case was registered as Special Case No.23/87. During the trial, the complainant Sushil Kumar Kungawani was examined before the Sessions Court in which he specifically stated that the applicant herein had never made any demand. The Special Judge, without considering the material aspects, passed the judgment on 03.04.1997 (Annexure A/2) in Special Case No.23/87 whereby the applicant was held guilty u/s 161 of I.P.C. and also u/s 5(1)(d) read with sec. 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. In furtherance to it, on 27.11.1997, the Deputy General Manager (Admn.), exercising the powers conferred under Rule 19(i) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 dismissed the applicant from service with immediate effect. The aforesaid judgment was challenged by the applicant before the Hon'ble High Court in Cr.A.No.750/97. On 28.08.2008, the judgment was passed by the Hon'ble High Court whereby the judgment passed by the Special Judge was set-aside and the applicant was acquitted from all the charges. The order of acquittal was passed holding that no demand and its acceptance has been proved by the prosecution. Further, the Hon'ble High Court observed that no proper sanction was accorded to launch the prosecution. The case was decided by the Hon'ble High Court looking into merits of the case as well as other technical aspects. Vide order dt.24.05.2010 (Annexure A/1), the applicant has been denied the benefit of regularization for the intervening period. He has been denied the wages/monetary benefits for the said period. The decision has been taken contrary to F.R.54 of Fundamental Rules. The Mercy Appeal was preferred by the applicant on 16.06.2010 before the Respondent No.2 against the order dated 24.05.2010. The Respondent no.1 vide order dated 05.03.2013 dismissed the appeal and the order passed by the subordinate authority dated 24.05.2010 has been affirmed. A copy of order passed by the appellate authority is filed as Annexure-A/23. The applicant is also seeking quashment of this order. It is submitted by the applicant that in the findings of the criminal court there was no demand for bribe nor the acceptance has been proved by the prosecution. Therefore, it is clear that no incident as such had taken place, therefore, it was incumbent upon the authority concerned to apply its own mind at the time of granting the sanction. If the sanction would have been refused, there was no reason to launch the prosecution. On the similar set of facts, other employees of Department viz. Shri A.K. Ambade and Shri Brij Bihari Gop have been granted the entire monetary benefits on their acquittal. It is an apparent case of hostile discrimination. The arbitrary order (Ann-A/1), therefore, is liable to be quashed with a direction to the respondents to regularise the entire intervening period for all purposes including the monetary benefits.

3. The respondents have filed their reply, wherein it is submitted th