##PAGE1##

LPA-54-2018 (O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

LPA-54-2018 (O&M)

Food Corporation of India and others

....Appellants

Versus

Ved Prakash Malhotra

...Respondent

*****

Reserved on: 23.09.2025

Pronounced on: 19.12.2025

Uploaded on: 19.12.2025

Whether only operative part of the judgment is

pronounced or the full judgment is pronouned: full judgment

*****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR

*****

Present: Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Vipul Sachdeva, Advocate

for the respondent.

*****

ROHIT KAPOOR, J.

1. Challenge in the present appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters

Patent Act, is to the judgment and order dated 26.09.2017 passed by the learned

Single Judge in CWP-4231-2016, whereby the writ petition filed by the

respondent has been partially allowed and the order dated 10.11.2015 (Annexure

P-9) declining to treat the period of absence from duty on account of suspension

and dismissal, as period spent on duty, has been set aside. The appellants have

been directed to regulate the suspension period from 07.04.2005 to 24.02.2006

and 27.08.2009 to 31.12.2009, as period spent on duty for all purposes. It has

been further directed that if the respondent-petitioner submits representation

with reference to any service benefits like promotion etc., the same shall be

MOHIT GOYAL

2025.12.19 11:56

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

LPA-54-2018 (O&M)

2

considered by the appellants in accordance with law and speaking order is

required to be passed within a period of three months from the date of such

representation.

2. The relevant facts as required to be noticed for adjudication of the

lis between the parties are that the respondent-petitioner while working as

Assistant Manager (Electrical) with the appellant-Food Corporation of India

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’), was caught red-handed in a trap laid

by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Punjab on the allegations that he had demanded

Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification for awarding a contract for maintenance and

repair of electric works of the Corporation at Adampur, Jalandhar. An FIR was

registered under section 7 read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 by the Vigilance Bureau, Phase-I, Mohali, Punjab.

3. The respondent was placed under deemed suspension from the date

of his detention i.e. from 07.04.2005 to 24.02.2006. The suspension was revoked

vide order dated 17.02.2006. Upon conviction of the respondent vide judgment

dated 27.08.2009, he was again suspended from 27.08.2009 to 21.12.2009, and

vide an order of even date, he was dismissed with immediate effect, without

holding any departmental enquiry, on the ground of his conviction in the

criminal case involving moral turpitude, leading to forfeiture of his gratuity. It

was ordered that the period of suspension will be treated as period not spent on

duty. The departmental appeal filed by the respondent against the said order, was

dismissed on 14.02.2012. The respondent-petitioner attained the age of

superannuation on 31.12.2009.

4. The criminal appeal filed by the respondent against his conviction,

was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and he was acquitted vide

MOHIT GOYAL

2025.12.19 11:56

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

LPA-54-2018 (O&M)

3

judgment dated 20.08.2014. After the acquittal, he filed a departmental review

for setting aside the dismissal order on 25.09.2014 and served a legal notice for

getting the same decided expeditiously. Aggrieved of the inaction of the

Corporation, he approached this Court by filing CWP No.12567 of 2015, which

was disposed of vide order dated 29.06.2015, with a direction to the competent

authority of the Corporation to take a decision on the legal notice and to pass a

speaking order.

5. In compliance of the afore-mentioned directions, the competent

authority of the Corporation passed a speaking order dated 10.11.2015

(Annexure P-9) wherein it was held that the offe