An employee's suspension period must be regularized as duty if acquitted of charges leading to suspension, unless justified otherwise.

O R D E R

( The Order of the Court made by Justice M . JOTHIRAMAN) Under assail is Order dated 08.06.2022 passed in OA.No.1083 of 2015 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench. The unsuccessful respondents in OA, have preferred the present writ petition before this Court.

2. The first respondent who was working as an Enforcement Officer in petitioner's organization was arrested on 03.07.2008, in respect of criminal offence, which was under investigation and remanded in judicial custody for a period exceeding 48 hours. By order dated 23.07.2008, the first respondent was placed under suspension. Subsequently, the above said suspension was revoked on 01.04.2009 by the competent authority. Meanwhile, the criminal case was instituted by CBI against the first respondent in C.C.No.1 of 2009 for the alleged offence under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the file of IX Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai. By judgment dated 28.10.2011, the criminal case in C.C.No.1 of 2009 as ended in acquittal.

2(i). Meanwhile CBI registered another case against the first respondent and his wife in C.C.No.1 of 2010 for the alleged offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for accumulating assets disproportionate to known sources of income.

2(ii). The first respondent submitted a representation dated 17.11.2011 to the second petitioner seeking regularization of the period of suspension as a duty period for all purpose and also for consequential service benefits in the light of the order of acquittal. No action was taken by the petitioners, thereafter the first respondent filed O.A.No.999 of

2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, for seeking a relief of regularization of the period of suspension as duty period with other consequential benefits. While the above said representation was pending before the authorities concerned, the Tribunal at the stage of admission itself disposed of the O.A.No.999 of 2013 vide order dated 25.07.2013 directed the petitioners to consider the representation dated 17.11.2011 and pass orders on merits in accordance with law and as per rules within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

2(iii). Thereafter, on 18.02.2014, the second petitioner has passed an order stating that since the other criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2010, as well as the departmental proceedings initiated subsequently in the year 2011 are pending against the first respondent for disproportionate assets, no action can be taken to regularize the period of suspension. It is also stated that the acquittal by the criminal Court is on procedural grounds and therefore it cannot be stated that the suspension is wholly unjustified.

2(iv). Aggrieved over the order dated 18.02.2014, the first respondent has preferred an appeal under Rule 19 of the EPF Staff (CC & A) Rules, 1971. The third petitioner has rejected the same on 05.06.2015 stating that there is no provision to prefer the said appeals, as it was not passed under EPF (CC & A) Rules.

2(v). In view of the pendency of the criminal case in C.C.No.1 of 2010, departmental proceedings were initiated by the petitioners against the first respondent for having concealed transactions of immovable and movable properties and in the name of his family members and not reporting them. After conducting due enquiry, the competent authority has passed an order of compulsory retirement of first respondent with effect from 20.01.2017. By judgment dated 13.06.2017 in C.C.No.1 of 2010 the first respondent and his wife were found guilty and sentenced to undergo two years imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-.

3. Aggrieved over the orders passed by the petitioners dated 18.02.2014 and 05.06.2015, the first respondent has preferred O.A.No.1083 of 2015. The Tribunal vide order dated 08.06.2022 quashed and set aside the orders, dated 18.02.2014 and 05.06.2015 and “it