AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.
The petitioner, against whom a crime was registered under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 20/12/1997 while he was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector, came to be dismissed from service on 20/01/2005, after he was convicted on 07/01/2005. On acquittal in the appeal, the order dated 03/03/2020 came to be issued, thereby suspension period of the petitioner denied to treat as duty period. Further he has been held entitled to receive 50% salary of last three preceding years of his superannuation. This gave a cause to the petitioner to approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal for grant of benefit as per Rule 70(2) and (3) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Joining Time, Foreign Services and Payment During Suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1981”).
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal vide judgment dated 13/08/2025 partly allowed the original application filed by the petitioner and modified the impugned order to the extent of holding that the applicant is entitled for full 100% back wages and allowances for the period as directed by the impugned order. The rest of the prayers were rejected. Hence, this petition.
Mr.Adwait Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that once the petitioner was honourably acquitted, the petitioner is entitled to receive all the benefits as contemplated under sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 70 of the Rules of 1981. It is submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in denying so and modifying it to the extent holding that the petitioner is entitled for 100% back wages and allowances for the period preceding three years of his superannuation, i.e. three years preceding to 02/05/2010.
Mr.Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn our attention to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 70 of the Rules of 1981, which deals with regularization of pay and allowances and the period of absence from duty where dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement is set aside as a result of appeal or review and such government servant is reinstated. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent-Authority is under sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 70 of the Rules of 1981, whereas the case of the petitioner is covered by sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 70 of the Rules of 1981. He therefore submits that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in ignoring the fact that sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 70 of the Rules of 1981 are not applicable to the case of the petitioner for the simple reason that the petitioner was honourably acquitted.
On the other hand, Ms M.H. Deshmukh, learned AGP for the respondents, supports the impugned order and submits that the Tribunal has rightly considering all the relevant facts modified the impugned order and there is no error committed by the Tribunal.
Having considered the rival contentions and having perused the record, it is evident that the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The order of conviction dated 07/01/2005 was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2005.
This Court allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated 07/01/2005 and acquitted the petitioner of the offences charged with.
While acquitting the petitioner, this Court has held thus –
“16] At this juncture, it would be appropriate to discuss that it was urged against accused that he was the same person who made a demand of bribe in respect of the other truck. On this point, in para 16 of his deposition, PW-5 has admitted that on 15.12.1997 the accused was out of Police Station from 9.00 am to 12.00 noon and the other truck was released in between 9.00 am to 12.00 noon from the Police Station itself. The said version of PW-5 indicates that when other truck was released from the Police Station, the accused was not present in the Police Station meaning thereby that the accused is not the same person who demanded the bribe from the other driver in concerned with the release of other truck and accepted the amount of Rs.2500/- from the other driver. The said evidence makes clear that the accused had not made a demand of other truck and he was not the same person who demanded the bribe in respect of the truck in concerned with the present case. The said version of PW-5 falsifies the case of PW-4 that at about 11.00 am on 16.12.1997, Shakil telephoned him and informed that Saheb told him that only on payment of Rs.2000/- papers of the truck and copy of panchanama will be given and Saheb had accepted Rs.2500/- and let the driver of that truck to go. The said fact clarifies that the accused is no way concerned with the alleged demand in respect of other truck and he was not that Saheb. The said fact also creates a doubt whether the accused is the same person who made demand in respect of both the trucks.”
“18] In this context, the testimony of PW-3 Rathod in para 8 shows that as per entry no.35 dated 20.12.1997 at 20.20 hours, shows that the accused along with other staff had gone for patrolling duty and there was no further entry in the station diary to show that the accused and others returned from patrolling duty till 21.35 hours. The said version of PW-3 Rathod makes amply clear that at the time of alleged trap and post trap panchanama which had taken place around 9.30 pm, the accused was not present in the Police Station. He had gone on patrolling duty. He had left the Police Station at 20.20 hours and he did not return back till 21.35 hours. Thus the presence of accused at the time of alleged acceptance of bribe amount is doubtful. As discussed above, the prosecution has not examined the prime witness Shakil Ahmad from whom the alleged demand of Rs.2000/- was made by the accused. There is no direct evidence on record to show that the bribe amount was demanded from driver Shakil Ahmad by the accused for providing the copy of spot panchanama dated 15.12.1997.
19] As already discussed that the presence of panch in the ACB office on 20.12.1997 is doubtful. The evidence on record shows that panchas were already called in concerned with some other complaint. Similarly they also remained present in the Police Station on 20.12.1997, but the evidence on record further shows that the pre trap panchanama was commenced at 5.00 pm and was concluded at 6.45 pm, whereas at the same time, the complaint also came to be recorded at 5.00 pm. Thus the investigation appears to have commenced even prior to lodging of the complaint by PW-4 which shows that the investigation was not properly conducted by the investigating agency and it appears that false case was concocted against the accused.
20] The overall assessment of the evidence shows that the spot panchanama was not recorded by the accused and his duty was not assigned to Rajni bifurcation where the accident of two trucks took place. In view thereof, there was no question by the accused making any demand from driver Shakil Ahmad for providing the copy of spot panchanama. Similarly, at the time of the second demand and the trap in respect of the bribe amount of Rs.1500/-, the accused was on patrolling duty and he was not present in the Karanja (Ghadge) Police Station at the relevant time. In view thereof, the seizure of amount of Rs.1500/- from the accused becomes doubtful.”
The learned Tribunal, having considered the above referred observations, has observed in clear terms in para-10 that the acquittal of the petitioner was clean acquittal and fully based on merits and can be treated as honourable acquittal.
In the light of above referred observations, let us referred to sub-rule (2) of Rule 70 of the Rules of 1981 on which the petitioner is harping upon to claim the benefits. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 70 of the Rules of 1981 reads thus –
“70. Regularisation of pay and allowances and the period of absence from duty where dismissal, removal or compulsory
retirement is set aside as a result of appeal or review and such Government servant is re-instated.
(2)Where the authority competent to order re-instatement is of opinion that the Government servant who had been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired has been fully exonerated, the Government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (6), be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be:”
It is thus clear from the language of sub-rule (2) of Rule 70 of the Rules of 1981, where the Authority Competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the government servant who had been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired has been fully exonerated, the government servant shall, subject to the provision of sub-rule (6) of Rule 70 of the Rules of 1981 be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement as the case may be.
Sub-rule (3) of Rule 70 of the Rules of 1981 says that in a case falling under sub-rule (2) of Rule 70, the period of absence from the duty including the period of suspension preceding dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement as the case may be, shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes.
Furthermore, it is evident from the provision of sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 70 of the Rules of 1981 that it will apply to the cases, which do not fall and cover under sub-rule (2) of Rule 70 of the Rules of 1981.
Once it is held that the acquittal of the petitioner is fully based on merits and can be treated as honourable acquittal, it can safely be said that the petitioner was fully exonerated, which is the precondition for application of sub-rule (2) of Rule 70 of the Rules of 1981.
Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that the case of the petitioner is covered by sub-rule (2) of Rule 70 of the Rules of 1981 and consequentially sub-rule (3) of Rule 70 will be applied to the case of the petitioner.
The moment this Court has held that the case of the petitioner is covered under sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 70 of the Rules of 1981, there is no question of applicability of sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 70 of the Rules of 1981 as held by respondent No.5 vide order dated 03/03/2020.
The respondents have failed to point out contrary to the above referred observations and satisfy this Court that how sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 70 of the Rules of 1981 are not applicable to the case of the petitioner.
In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed or suspended, prior to such dismissal. Equally, the petitioner is entitled for treating the period of suspension preceding dismissal as a period spent on duty for all purposes. In that view of the matter, the petition is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
The orders dated 03/03/2020 and 12/08/2020 passed by respondent No.5, order dated 17/04/2020 passed by the Deputy Superintendent (Home), Wardha and the judgment and order dated 13/08/2025 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.96 of 2021 are hereby quashed and set aside.
It is held and declared that the petitioner is entitled to receive full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed and further his period of suspension preceding dismissal is to be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes as per the provisions of sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 70 of the Rules of 1981.
The benefits for which the petitioner is held to be entitled shall be released in favour of the petitioner within three months from today.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.