Gujarat High Court
Vikash Omveersingh Chaudhary vs Union Of India on 12 April, 2022
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/16620/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16620 of 2020
==========================================================
VIKASH OMVEERSINGH CHAUDHARY
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASIT B JOSHI(2567) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SIRAJ R GORI(2298) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
SERVED BY RPAD (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 12/04/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India the petitioner has prayed to set aside the impugned action of the
respondents in not regularizing the period of suspension from 11.02.2006
to 03.10.2007 and to direct the respondents to regularize the said period
of suspension of the petitioner and treat the same as period spent on duty.
3. Facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner was working as
Constable on 10.07.2002. He got married on 25.04.2004. As a result of
some matrimonial discord, it appears that the wife of the petitioner
committed suicide. The father of the wife of the petitioner lodged an FIR
being C.R. No. 37 of 2006 dated 03.02.2006 with Gandhigram Police
Station, Rajkot for offences punishable under sections 498A, 306, 304B
and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Court by a judgement
C/SCA/16620/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022
dated 07.05.2007 acquitted the petitioner in Sessions Case No. 52 of
2006.
4. However as Mr. Joshi would submit in the interregnum the
petitioner was suspended on 20.02.2006 with effect from 11.02.2006 by
virtue of operation of Rule 133 of the Railway Protection Force Rules,
1987. The suspension was revoked on 03.10.2007 pursuant to the
judgement of acquittal by the trial court.
5. It is undisputed that a criminal appeal being Acquittal Appeal No.
470 of 2008 is pending consideration before this court filed by the State.
Mr. Joshi would rely on an order passed by this court in Special Civil
Application No. 15914 of 2017 dated 04.02.2020 and several other orders
passed by this court wherein according to Mr. Joshi's submission the
suspension period has been regularized subject to the outcome of the
criminal appeal.
6. Mr. Siraj Gori, learned advocate appearing for the respondent
drawing the attention of the court to the affidavit-in-reply would submit
that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of his period of suspension
from 11.02.2006 to 03.10.2007 being regularized and be treated as spent
on duty. Criminal Appeal is pending before this court. He submitted that
there are certain aspects which deserve consideration inasmuch as an FIR
was lodged against the petitioner and pursuant to his arrest on 11.02.2006
the petitioner remained in jail for a period of 440 days from 12.02.2006 to
07.05.2007. He submitted that criminal appeal is admitted and therefore
there is no reason why the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of
regularization of the period of suspension.
C/SCA/16620/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022
7. This court vide order dated 04.02.2020 considering the issue of
regularization of suspension pending criminal appeal, has held as under:
"7. The period of suspension for 4 years is not being
regularized due to the pendency of Criminal Appeal No.146
of 2013.
8. Considering the relief prayed for by the petitioner and in
view of the decision dated 3.3.2017 in Special Civil
Application No.10548 of 2011 and allied matters in case of
such similarly situated employees, wherein, they were
constrained to approach this Court as that period of
suspension were not regularized due to the pending appeals
and when this Court specifically directed as so reproduced in
the earlier part of this judgment and particularly when their
case is considered for regularizing their suspension was
passed, I see no reason that why similar relief cannot be
extended the benefit to the petitioner. Hence, the petition
deserves to be allowed.
9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondents are
directed to see that the period of suspension from 29.11.2006
to 15.4.2010 in case of the petitioner is ordered to be
regularized as being the petitioner was on duty for the
aforesaid period. Such exercise shall be carried out within a
period of Eight Weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this
order. However, it is clarified that when such benefits are
extended, the orders so granting such benefit shall
specifically stayed as this order is subject to the final
outcome of the Criminal Appeal No.146 of 2013.
10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
Service is permitted."
8. Considering the principle as aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to regularize the period of suspension from
11.02.2006 to 03.10.2007 as being the period spent on duty. The exercise
shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of the
C/SCA/16620/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2022
writ of this order. However, it is clarified that the extension of such
benefits shall be specifically subject to the outcome of the criminal appeal
being Criminal Appeal No. 470 of 2008 and when such benefits are
extended, the order so granting such benefit shall specifically state that
this order is subject to final outcome of the Criminal Appeal No. 470 of
2008. Direct service is permitted.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
DIVYA
