AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Chockalingam, J.—This writ petition seeks to quash the order dated 9.7.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A,.
No. 785 of 2008, whereby the application filed by the second respondent, challenging the order of rejection of his claim treating the period from
7.3.2006 to 21.5.2008 as duty and for salary and other benefits during that period, was allowed.
This writ petition came to be filed under the following circumstances:
(i) The second respondent i.e. one Karpagavinayagam was actually working as Assistant Postmaster in Tenkasi HPO. He was placed under
suspension under Rule 10(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by an order dated 3.3.2006 on the specific ground that a criminal case was
registered by the CBI and thereafter the case was closed on 30.3.2007 by the learned Special Judge, CBI Cases, Madurai. Thereafter, he filed
O.A. No. 760 of 2007 before the Tribunal, seeking to set aside the order of suspension. On enquiry, it was ordered and it was further held that he
was entitled for all consequential reliefs, but insofar as other reliefs are concerned, he has to wait till the completion of disciplinary proceedings
initiated by the department.
(ii) After the order was passed, the second respondent made an application before the Authority to treat the suspension period as duty and for all
other consequential benefits, which was actually denied by the Department. Under such circumstances, he filed O.A. No. 785 of 2008 before the
Tribunal. On enquiry, the Tribunal allowed the application, recording a finding that the second respondent was entitled for regularization of the
period of suspension from 7.3.2006 to 21.5.2008. The said order is being challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
The only contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner before the Tribunal and equally here also is that originally, the second
respondent was under suspension. It is true that the suspension was actually set aside by the Tribunal in the earlier application in O.A. No. 760 of
2007 filed by the second respondent. But, at the same time, it should be taken into account the disciplinary proceedings have already been initiated
and the proceedings are pending. Under such circumstances, the second respondent is not entitled for regularization as one asked for by him.
After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and looking into the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the contention put forth by the petitioner does not carry any merit whatsoever. It is not in controversy that a criminal case was
registered against the second respondent and others by the C.B.I. But, later, the case was closed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Cases,
Madurai. During that period, he was kept under suspension. Only subsequent to the proceedings initiated by the C.B.I., the disciplinary
proceedings were initiated by the department.
Thereafter, he filed O.A. No. 760 of 2007 before the Tribunal, seeking to set aside the suspension order. On enquiry, the Tribunal set aside the
suspension order and it was also held that the second respondent was entitled for pay during that period. It is now pertinent to point out that the
second respondent was suspended only pursuant to the initiation of the case by the C.B.I. It is not the case of the petitioner before this Court that
the second respondent was kept under suspension on other grounds also. The second respondent was kept under suspension only because of case
registered by the C.B.I. Once the case registered by the C.B.I. was closed and thereafter, the Tribunal also passed an order, setting aside the
order of suspension, the second respondent was entitled for all the benefits during the relevant period.
The Court is unable to accept the case of the petitioner. The order passed by the Tribunal does not require any disturbance in the hands of this
Court. The writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P. is also dismissed. No costs.