1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

:::

ORDER

Laxman R. Pinjani

Vs.

RSRTC & Ors.

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION

NO.2588/2005

UNDER

ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

DATE OF ORDER

::

3^rd ovember, 2006

PRESENT

REPORTABLE

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

Mr.Harish Purohit, for the petitioner.

Mr.Santosh Choudary, for the respondents.

<><><>

BY THE COURT:

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18^th Nov.,

2003 by which the respondents have denied to pay him any

other emoluments except subsistence allowance already received

by him.

The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of LDC in

Public Works Department (B&R), Division-I, Ajmer on 8.9.1962.

The petitioner was thereafter absorbed in the RSRTC in the year

1964. He was then promoted on the post Junior Accountant. A

2

criminal case against the petitioner on 25.4.1979 under the

provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act was registered while

he was working at Sri Ganganagar Depot. He therefore was

placed under suspension and a charge-sheet was also issued to

him. Subsequently however the charge-sheet was withdrawn by

the respondent-corporation. The Anti Corruption Bureau,

Bikaner filed challan against him in the trial court. The petitioner

thereafter faced trial. After completion of trial, the trial court

convicted the petitioner for the charges levelled against him.

Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the petitioner

preferred an appeal before this Court being S.B.Cr. Appeal

No.332/1984 and the same was eventually allowed by this Court

vide judgment dated 18.2.2000 and the order of conviction and

sentence was set aside. However,when the petitioner made

representation to the respondents for demanding the amount of

full salary and other allowance as per Rule 54(2) of the RSRTC

Karmchari Sewa Niyam, 1965, the respondents by their order

dated 18.11.2003, referred to supra, declined such benefits. It

was mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioner while

working at the Ganganagar Depot was caught red handed by the

raiding party of Anti Corruption Department while accepting

illegal gratification and therefore, he was suspended vide order

dated 25.4.1979. The charge-sheet was also issued to him on

8.8.1988 Pending inquiry, however he was reinstated in service

3

on 6.9.1989. Subsequently, the charge-sheet was withdrawn

vide order dated 19.6.2001. For all these reasons, it was not

considered proper to pay him full salary and allowances for the

period of suspension.

I have heard Shri Harish Purohit, learned counsel for the

petitioner as well as Shri Santosh Choudary, learned counsel fo

the respondents and perused the record.

Shri Harish Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner has

argued that since the petitioner has been acquitted of all the

charges in the criminal case and the charge-sheet which was

issued by the respondents was also withdrawn by them and

there was no reason for not granting him full salary and other

allowances. Only reason for placing the petitioner under

suspension was the criminal case registered against him at the

instance of Anti Corruption Bureau and when the charge against

the petitioner has not been proved, the foundation thereof has

now been rendered non-existent. Payment of entire emoluments

therefore cannot be now denied to the petitioner. It has

therefore been prayed that the writ petition may be allowed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent

argued that according to Rules 54(2) of the Rajasthan Service

4

Rules, which have been adopted by the respondents, it is the

discretion of the authority whether or not to give full salary or

other benefits during the period of suspension. In the present

case, the allegation against the petitioner was that he was

illegally accepting illegal gratification from a junior employee and

was caught red handed by the