Jagdev Kumar vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 663 j&K

     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                      AT JAMMU

                                                   Reserved on 13.04.2022
                                                   Pronounced on .04.2022


                                                 WP(C) No. 2915/2021(O&M)

Jagdev Kumar                                     .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)


                    Through: Mr. Narinder K. Attri, Advocate
               Vs
Union Territory of J&K and others                             ..... Respondent(s)
                    Through: Ms. Pallvi Sharma Advocate vice
                             Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG for Nos. 1
                             Mr. Ajay Abrol, Advocate for Nos. 2 to 4

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
                                 JUDGMENT

1. With the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, the present petition

is taken up for final disposal.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(a) To regularize the period of suspension with effect from 1 st September,

2005 till 20.06.2010 i.e. the actual date of superannuation in terms of

the order passed by respondent No. 3 dated 26 of February, 2010.

(b) To release the pay along with all increments w.e.f. the 01.09.2005 till

the date of superannuation in terms of revised pay rules.

(c) further to release the gratuity, General Provident Fund, SLI and all

other retiral benefits.

3. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Accountant/clerk on

08.10.1979 in the Jammu and Kashmir Minerals Limited and he was

promoted as Senior Accounts Clerk in the year, 2005. While he was

performing the duties as Senior Accounts Clerk in the year, 2005, a false

and frivolous FIR bearing No. 9 of 2005 was registered by the Police

Station Vigilance Organization Jammu for commission of offences under

sections 5(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act,

2006 read with sections 409, 467, 468 and 120B RPC dated 01.09.2005.

On 20.03.2008, the Police Station Vigilance Organization filed the charge

sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and the co-accused

before the court of Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu where from the

same was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge,

Anticorruption, Jammu. The petitioner was acquitted from the charges by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anticorruption, Jammu vide order

dated 26.12.2019. It is stated that when the FIR was registered against the

petitioner, he was arrested and the respondents had placed him under

suspension from the date of arrest i.e. 01.09.2005. It was also stated that

the petitioner shall not be allowed to draw the pay until termination of

proceedings initiated and acquittal of the charges levelled against him.

During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner was retired from the

services of the Corporation. It is further stated that after securing the

acquittal of the charges, the petitioner moved a representation dated

12.07.2020 with the official respondents 1 and 2 for the release of the

service benefits and to regularize the period of suspension with effect

from the date the petitioner was placed under suspension i.e. 01.09.2005

and release all consequential benefits. It is stated that despite

representation, the claim of the petitioner was not considered. Rather the

respondents are under obligation to pay retiral benefits to the petitioner, as

the retention of the same was only on account of the criminal charges.

4. Objections stand filed by the respondent 2 to 4 in which it has been stated

that no doubt the petitioner has earned acquittal but the same is only on

the technical ground and further that there had been a loss of Rs. 8.00 lacs

to the public exchequer at the instance of the petitioner. It is also stated

that the representation of the petitioner is under active consideration with

the respondents and as there is embezzlement of Rs. 8.00 lacs, so the

answering respondents are under a legal obligation to fix the

responsibility and to indemnify the loss which has occurred to the

Corporation during the tenure of the petitioner.

5. Mr. Narinder Kumar Attri, learned counsel for the petitioner has

vehemently submitted that the petitioner has earned acquittal as such, he

is entitled to all the service benefits. Mr. Narinder Kumar Attri has placed

reliance upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case

titled, Ravinder Singh Jamwal vs State and others, 2018 I JKJ 424 and

judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case titled, State of J&K

and others vs Saij Singh, 2014 3 JKJ 342.

6. Per contra, Mr. Ajay Abrol learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4

submits that the writ petition is premature as the respondents are actively

considering the representation filed by the petitioner and further that the

respondents-Corporation has suffered a loss of Rs. 8.00 lacs.

7. Heard and perused the record.

8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges by

the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anticorruption, Jammu

and also this is an admitted fact that the petitioner has made a

representation with the respondents and the same is under the active

consideration of the respondents as admitted by the respondents in the

objections.

9. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with a

direction to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to decide the representation filed

by the petitioner and also consider the claim of the petitioner with regard

to regularization of the period of suspension with effect from 1st of

September, 2005 till 26.02.2010 i.e. the actual date of superannuation in

terms of the order passed by respondent No. 3 dated 26th of February,

2010 and for release of the pay along with all increments w.e.f.

01.09.2005 till the date of superannuation in terms of revised pay rules

and further for release of the gratuity, General Provident Fund and all

other retiral benefits. The same shall be done by the respondent Nos. 2-4

within a period of 30 days from the date of copy of this order is made

available to the respondent Nos. 2-4 by the petitioner. It is made clear that

taking in to account the age of the petitioner, the respondent Nos. 2-4 shall

strictly adhere to the time frame fixed by this court for deciding the claim

of the petitioner.

10. Disposed of.

(Rajnesh Oswal) Judge JAMMU .04.2022 Rakesh Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No