AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Katju, J.—This writ petition has been filed against the impugned termination order dated October 29, 1992. In this case one month''s time had been granted to file counter-affidavit but no counter-affidavit has been filed. In the circumstances I am treating the allegation in the petition to be correct and am disposing off the petition finally.
I have heard Shri Manoj Misra and learned standing counsel.
The impugned order shows that the petitioner is implicated in a case u/s 307/302 I.P.C. which is still pending against him and his service has been terminated for that reason. In my opinion if a person is implicated in a criminal case he should be suspended pending the criminal trial. If the criminal trial ends in conviction his services can be terminated and if he is acquitted he should be reinstated. Hence 1 direct that the impugned order dated October 29, 1992 is set aside and the petitioner will remain suspended until the pendency of the criminal case. If the petitioner is convicted his services can be terminated but if he is acquitted he should be reinstated within a month. The petitioner will be paid subsistence allowance.
With these observations, the writ petition is finally disposed off.