AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bilal Nazki, J.—Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondent. The writ petition is decided at this stage with their consent.
The respondent was placed under suspension with effect from 8-9-1995. A criminal case in CC No. 11 of 1996 was registered against him which was tried and resulted in acquittal of the respondent. The State did not file any appeal and the judgment became final. On 4-11-2000 the respondent was reinstated into service. The period of suspension from 15-9-1995 to 12-11-2000 was not treated as on duty. Against this the respondent moved the Tribunal. The Tribunal on the day when the case came up for admission decided the matter and allowed the OA. In paras 12 and 13 the Tribunal noted.
"12. The learned Government Pleader, no doubt, seeks time to get instructions and file counter.
In view of the determined case law on the point, no purpose would be served by granting any time to file counter."
In our view, time should have been given to the respondent to file the counter. It is not safe to presume without hearing the other side as to what is the law on a particular subject with which the Court is dealing at a particular point of time. If it was possible for the Judges to know the law on all the subjects at all points of time, then there would have been no necessity of the Bar. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner has drawn our attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Krishnakant Raghunath Bibhavnekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, , wherein it was held that acquittal in a criminal case followed by reinstatement will not entitle for grant of consequential benefits to a suspended employee as a matter of course. The Tribunal came to some other conclusions, but it would have been in a better position if it has appreciated the respective cases of the parties. We do not shut the mouth of a party on the ground that he will have nothing to say in the matter. If he is allowed to say, then the Court could come to a conclusion whether it is worthwhile to consider what was said by such a party. In this view of the matter, the judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded back for fresh disposal after giving of chance to the writ petitioner to file their counter. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.