ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Member(A)) This OA has been filed by the applicant, seeking the following relief:-

“The applicant humbly pray that this Hon. Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 08.05.2018 issued by the 3rd Respondent and the impugned order issued by the 2nd Respondent dated 23.08.2018 and consequently direct the Respondents to treat the period of deemed suspension from 26.08.2011 to 31.12.2011 as duty along with all consequential monetary benefits.”

2.The brief facts of the case, according to the Applicant, are as under :- i. The Applicant was working as Postman, Pudur SO, Kovilpatti Division.

He was arrested and imprisoned for more than 48 hours in a false and fabricated criminal case on 14.08.2010 and was placed on deemed suspension between 14.08.2010 and 30.12.2011. The Criminal Court acquitted the Applicant in the said criminal case, passing on the benefit of doubt, as the Prosecution had failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Applicant requested the Disciplinary Authority to treat his deemed suspension period as “Duty”, with full wages, which was rejected by the Disciplinary Authority. The Applicant preferred an appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority which was also rejected on the ground that the Applicant was acquitted only on the ground of benefit of doubt. Hence, this application to set aside the impugned proceedings.

ii.During the year 2010, the Applicant was arrested and imprisoned for more than 48 hours in a case vide FIR No.143 of 2010, filed at the Vilathikulam Police Station, on 14.08.2010, in an alleged private quarrel. Accordingly, the Applicant was placed under deemed suspension with effect from 14.08.2010, vide Memo No. IP/KOLE/Disc-dlgs/M. Vengadesan, dated 26.08.2010, issued by the Inspector of Posts, Kovilpatti, in connection with the said criminal offence under investigation and detention of the official in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours.

iii.The applicant submits that after periodical review of deemed suspension, he was reinstated into service vide Memo No. IP/KOLE/Disc-dlgs/M.

Vengadesan, dated 30.12.2011, by revoking the said order of deemed suspension. Accordingly, the Applicant resumed duty and continues to be employed till now.

iv.The trial in the said criminal case continued and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kovilpatti, passed an order acquitting the applicant in the said criminal case, vide his Judgement, order dated 20.02.2014, in S.C.No.30 of 2011, exonerating him of all charges on benefit of doubt, as the Prosecution had failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

v.The Applicant submits that immediately on receipt of the order of the Criminal Court, he made a request to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kovilpatti Division, Kovilpatti- 628 501, vide his letter, dated 14.07.2014, by attaching the Court Order, to regularise his deemed suspension period along with back wages.

vi.The applicant submits that, in the meantime, he successfully completed departmental examination and got promoted as Postal Assistant at Anna Road HPO, Chennai – 600002, with effect from November, 2015.

vii.He submitted a representation to regularize the period of suspension by treating the entire period as on duty with all monetary benefits. The 3rd Respondent, who is the Disciplinary Authority, by his impugned Proceedings, dated 08.05.2018, rejected his request for regularization of his deemed suspension period with back wages without citing any provision or rationale for such a rejection by stating that "period of suspension... to be treated as Non-duty for all purposes including pension and restrict the pay and allowances of the official for the said period to the amount already drawn and paid to him".

viii.He preferred an appeal, dated 18.05.2018, against the order of rejection of his request, regularization o