Chattisgarh High Court
Domar Singh vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 June, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 2588 of 2021
1. Domar Singh S/o Shri Bahor Singh Aged About 51 Years Forest Guard,
R/o Village Dumarpadav, Post Taurenga, Tahsil Mainpur, District
Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Forest Department,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. The Conservator Of Forest Udanti Sitanadi Tiger Reserve, Raipur
Forest Colony, Raja Talab, Near Saksharta Chowk Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Chief Forest Conservator Raipur Sitanadi Tiger Reserve, Raipur District
Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4. Director Forest Sitanadi Tiger Reserve Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
5. Deputy Director Sitandi Tiger Reserve, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh. ----Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Abhishek Chandravansi, Advocate.
For State : Shri Rahul Jha, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order On Board
18.06.2021
1. The present writ petition has been filed claiming for a relief of a
direction to the respondents to grant all the consequential relief
including monetary benefits and the promotional benefits and also the
seniority at par with the person similarly placed in the department
appointed along with petitioner.
2. The petitioner in the present writ petition was appointed as a Forest
Guard under the respondents in the year 1992. The petitioner got
involved in a criminal case under section 376 of IPC in the year 1997
and was subjected to criminal trial vide Session Trial No. 210/1997.
Initially the petitioner stood convicted and was sentenced to undergo IR
of seven years with fine of Rs. 1000/-. The judgment of conviction was
challenged in a criminal appeal before the High Court vide Criminal
Appeal No. 2535/1999.
3. This Court however after hearing the appeal vide its judgment dated
03.02.2015 set aside the judgment of the conviction and acquitted the
petitioner from the charges. Though the petitioner got acquitted, the
respondent/State had not taken the petitioner back in service, he stood
continued under suspension for a long period, from the time of his
getting involved in a criminal case. The petitioner again approached the
High Court and the High Court vide order dated 27.09.2018 in WP(S)
No. 6360/2018 directed the respondents to consider and take a
decision on the request of the petitioner for being taken back in service.
Subsequently, the petitioner was taken back in service on 05.12.2018
and since then he is continuing in service.
4. The plain reading of the order of reinstatement (Annexure P/5) dated
05.12.2018 would clearly reflect that the said order is totally silent as to
how the intervening period i.e. the period of suspension of the
petitioner, would be treated or has to be treated.
5. It is at this juncture relevant to mention that under the Fundamental
Rules governing the service conditions of the petitioner, particularly
Sub rule 3 of Rule 54-B, it is incumbent for the employer on
reinstatement of an employee after suspension, to pass an order as to
how the intervening period has to be treated particularly in respect of
the entitlement of the petitioner for the intervening period.
6. This requirement of law has not been exercised by the respondents till
now.
7. Given the said legal statutory position as it stands and also taking note
of the fact that the order of taking the petitioner back in service being
silent on this aspect, the writ petition at this juncture is disposed of
directing the respondents No. 2 to 5 to take an appropriate decision in
accordance with the provisions of aforementioned rules
8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
Sd/-
1. P. Sam Koshy
Judge
Jyotijha
