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 29-10-92. 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 allegations 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 under Sections 307/302 Indian Penal Code 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 suspending 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 I direct that the impugned order dated 29-10-92 is set aside and the petitioner will remain suspended until the pendency of the criminal ease. If the petitioner is convicted his services can be terminated but if he is acquitted be should be reinstated within a month. The petitioner will be paid subsistence allowance.
With these observations, the writ petition is finally disposed off.