LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Non-grant of full wages against suspension period even after quashing of the proceedings

(Querist) 12 June 2016 This query is : Resolved 
Respected Experts,

Kindly go through the attachment, analyze, guide and oblige as early as possible. As, I consider it was my right to approach the Hon'ble High Court for quashing the case. And in many judgments the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that when in matrimonial disputes, if both parties are agree to reconcile and lead amicably agreed life, then to proceed further trial will surely be futile and shall not be in the interest of justice.

The issuing authority perhaps wishes the applicant to go for such a trial about which an Hon'ble High Court of Judicature has already decided that it will be futile and cause harm to the interests of justice.

Please help and guide with the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Judgments citing "Payment of Full Wages in Cases of Criminal Proceedings Quashed in the interest of Justice even the Petitioner has spent some time in Judicial Custody. (URGENT IF YOU PLEASE, ONLY 10 DAYS OF RESPONSE TIME GRANTED BY THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY)

I shall be grateful to all of you.

Yours sincerely,

Ritesh Ranjan
Kumar Doab (Expert) 12 June 2016
Has the authority declined in writing citing reasons!
RITESH RANJAN (Querist) 12 June 2016
The Authority has cited reasons that
1. Whereas, the Hon'ble High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings arose out of the FIR based on the compromise entered into between husband and wife.
2. Whereas, it being not an honourable acquittal from the charges and it was a compromise settlement without any trial, and that he was in judicial custody during most of the said period. In accordance with FR 54-B the payment will be restricted to subsistence allowance drawn by him already.
RITESH RANJAN (Querist) 12 June 2016
Help from more experts is urgently required please.
Kumar Doab (Expert) 12 June 2016
The authority has already replied.

Engage a very able counsel.

LCI experts like Mr. P.S.Dhingra, Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Mr. P. Venu,................ may be approached. They may agree to counsel you.
RITESH RANJAN (Querist) 12 June 2016
Sir,that's why I migrated from forum to experts...Praying their kind view over...my case...

Devajyoti Barman (Expert) 12 June 2016
Though indeed quashing in the ground of mutual compromise is not hOnourable acquittal, a sine qua non for reinstatement, the employer can surely revoke the suspension since the incarceration arising Out of matrimonial dispute is private i nature and not a moral turpitude.
So make full representation in writing to revoke the suspension on the ground of mutual quashing and if it yields nothing challenge the same in CAT/HC.
RITESH RANJAN (Querist) 13 June 2016
Heartfelt Thanks Shri Devajyoti Sir, what my contention is when the Hon'ble High Court has quashed all the proceedings after minute perusal of all the records being called from the lower records and hearing both the parties as well as the State. Then after referring to many Judgments from the Supreme Court of India, Hon'ble Chief Justice Sir of the High Court (the then) has given the Order and the Judgement of Quashing and allowing the petition under Cr.P.C. 482.
How, an authority can say that parties are not an honourable citizens or clean servant of Govt. now. Please help and guide sir.
Devajyoti Barman (Expert) 13 June 2016
So now your relief lies in CAT/High Court for reinstatement as advised earlier.
Kumar Doab (Expert) 13 June 2016
The entire case file/history/details should be referred while drafting and structuring any representation/reply from your (employee's) end, to defend your interest in the long run.



Expert Mr. Devajyoti Barman has provided sufficient inputs.


Spend quality time with such experts for the needful from your end.





P. Venu (Expert) 13 June 2016
The general rule is that full wages are paid only if no blame is attributable to the Government servant for the cause that led to the suspension and the course of action thereafter. It appears from the facts stated that two views are possible and if so, the view of the Disciplinary Authority prevails.
Kumar Doab (Expert) 14 June 2016
Apparently you are posting that the 'view of the authority is erroneous' and due opportunity with time has been given to you, to represent.



After your representation the authority shall direct to record the reasons in writing.


You need to convince that suspension was wholly unjustified.



It is reiterated that you need to spend quality time to provide inputs and docs for examination and considered opinion and then structure your representation.




Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 14 June 2016
Agree with the advice from expert Kumar Doab.
RITESH RANJAN (Querist) 14 June 2016
Respected Sirs, is there any supporting Judgment of the Hon'ble SCI related to my case isaavailable ? I am searching my best. You also kindly help. PLEASE.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Expert) 15 June 2016
what was the case.
Dr J C Vashista (Expert) 15 June 2016
I fully agree with expert advise of Mr. Devajyoti Barman, howeever, it you feel it may be added to his opinion/advise:

The FIR lodged u/s 498/406 IPC do not involve any moral turpitude of the employee, which may affect the organisational requirement/function and its rules, therefore, order of suspension from service is void and illegal, it should have been contested and revoked at the same time.

Whatsoever, now the complaint case is closed "honourably" by High Court by way of "Quashing" the FIR, what remained to be inquired by employer and/or extending suspension?

Get your representation drafted by a prudent local lawyer practicing in service matters.
Kumar Doab (Expert) 15 June 2016
You are asking for citations again and again.
Probably you believe that the citation shall help you to change the view of authority.


The authority shall refer to its rule book.


It is imp. that you consult with full case file and let your able counsel structure your representations.




Subsequent to the post Dr. Vashista,
You may go thru:



http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Service-matters-urgent-advice-needed-535966.asp#.VUjXoPB-hkg

http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Road-accident-case-can-affect-my-job--565526.asp



Madras High Court
A.Velusamy vs Tamilnadu Generation & ... on 19 December, 2014

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/71635321/?type=print



Delhi High Court
Ms. Nidhi Kaushik vs Union Of India & Ors. on 26 May, 2014

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/2803750/?type=print




Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Vineet Kumar Aged About 32 Years ... vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 12 September, 2012


http://indiankanoon.org/doc/116602584/?type=print







P. Venu (Expert) 15 June 2016
It appears that the queriest was in police custody for more than 48 hours. The suspension was revoked once he was released.

Subsequent acquittal is on compromise. As such, the arrest or the subsequent placing under suspension cannot be said to be unlawful or unjustified. The authority is following the correct procedure and its views cannot be said to be unsustainable.

Anyhow, you may submit reply to the SCN on the lines suggested by the learned experts above.
Kumar Doab (Expert) 15 June 2016
It has been concluded by experts and is reiterated that Let all representations be structured by a very able counsel, keeping in mind the long term interest.
Kumar Doab (Expert) 15 June 2016
>>> You have posted that:


"2. Whereas, it being not an honourable acquittal from the charges and it was a compromise settlement without any trial,.....................In accordance with FR 54-B the payment will be restricted to subsistence allowance drawn by him already."




>>> It is felt that;


…………..“This rule has been now amended and the words 'honorably acquitted' do not appear in F.R. 54-B............



The removal of the words honorably acquitted makes a substantial difference. The only thing that has now to be seen by the competent authority is whether the suspension was wholly unjustified.......................................... and not whether the Govt. servant was "honorably acquitted'.”




>>> Consider for a moment that the authority does not concur and you approach Tribunal/HC and respondents approach SC and SC take a full view of the matter at that time.



Therefore place the whole case file before a very able counsel let your counsel make a full note of words and statements etc and structure your representation, so as to defend your long term interest .




P. Venu (Expert) 15 June 2016
FR 54B is reproduced below:
F.R. 54-B. (1) When a Government servant who has been suspended is re-instated or would have been so re-instated but for
his retirement on superannuation while under suspension, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make specific order-

(a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of suspension ending with re-instatement or the date of his retirement on superannuation, as the case may be, and

(b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 53, where a Government servant under suspension dies before the disciplinary
or court proceedings instituted against him are concluded, the period between the date of suspension and the date of death shall
be treated as duty for all purposes and his family shall be paid the full pay and allowances for that period to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, subject to adjustment in
respect of subsistence allowance already paid.

(3) Where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the
Government servant shall subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8), be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended:
Provided that where such authority is of the opinion that the termination of the proceedings instituted against the Government servant had been delayed due to reason directly attributable to the
Government servant it may, after giving him an opportunity to make his representation
[within 60 days from the date on which the
communication in this regard is served in him] and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him direct, for reasons to be recorded in writing that the Government servant shall be paid for the period of such delay only such [amount (not being the whole)]
of such pay and allowances as it may determine.
(4) In a case falling under sub-rule (3) the period of suspension shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes.
(5) In cases other than those falling under sub-rules (2) and (3) the Government servant shall subject to the provisions of subrules (8) and (9) be paid such

[amount (not being the whole) of
the full pay and allowances] to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, as the competent authority may
determine, after giving notice to the Government servant of the quantum proposed and after considering the representation,if any, submitted by him in that connection within such period [which in
no case shall exceed sixty days from the date on which the notice
has been served as may be specified in the notice.
(6) Where suspension is revoked pending finalisation of the disciplinary or court proceedings, any order passed under sub-rule
(1) before the conclusion of the proceedings, against the Government servant, shall be reviewed on its own motion after the conclusion of the proceedings by the authority mentioned in subrule (1) who shall make an order according to the provisons of subrule
(3) or sub-rule (5) as the case may be.


(7) In a case falling under sub-rule (5) the period of suspension shall not be treated as a period spent on duty, unless
the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated
for any specified purpose:
Provided that if the Government servant so desires, such authority may order that the period of suspension shall be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible to the Government servant.
Note.- The order of the competent authority under the preceding proviso shall be absolute and no higher sanction
shall be necessary for the grant of-
(a) extraordinary leave in excess of three months in the case of temporary Government servants; and
(b) leave of any kind in excess of five years in the case of permanent or quasi-permanent Government servant.
(8) The payment of allowances under sub-rule (2), sub-rule (3) or sub-rule (5) shall be subject to all other conditions under which such allowances are admissible.
(9) The amount determined under the proviso to sub-rule (3) or under sub-rule (5) shall not be less than the subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible under rule 53.

The instant case needs to be regularised in terms of the provisions of sub-rule (5) read with those of sub-rule (7). As such it could be seen the Authority is giving most liberal interpretation, as far as the rules permit, in favour of the queriest; the hard fact is that this is a case of deemed suspension and the acquittal has been on compromise.

The rule in this context has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation vs. M. Prabhakar Rao.
Kumar Doab (Expert) 15 June 2016
Expert Shri P. Venu has very kindly produced the F.R.54-B.




>>> The author has been granted opportunity to represent and had 10 days time when this query was posted 3 days back.


Apparently the author is left with 7 days time as on today.




>>> As in my last post and all posts of experts the author has been advised to place whole case file before the legally trained eyes of a very able counsel specializing in labor-service matters and let the whole matter be examined by legally trained mind of his able counsel.


Let the able counsel structure your reply/representation so as to defend your long term interest................as the matter is likely to linger on and may be before tribunal/HC/SC.




>>> I have posted in last post ".“This rule has been now amended and the words 'honorably acquitted' do not appear in F.R. 54-B............".


Since the author has posted that...............""2. Whereas, it being not an honourable acquittal from the charges and it was a compromise settlement without any trial,.....................In accordance with FR 54-B the payment will be restricted to subsistence allowance drawn by him already."".






>>> "F. R. 54-B(3) would apply in all cases and when the authority competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension Was wholly unjustified the government servant would be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended. The learned counsel further contended that prior to 1970 unamended Rule 54 applied and only government servants who were honorably acquitted of the criminal charge were entitled to claim full pay and allowances for the period of suspension, however after the amendment under new F.R. 54-B only if a government servant was fully exonerated on merits that he would be entitled to the whole of the pay and allowances."






>>> "whenever there is an acquittal on technical grounds or whenever there is an acquittal because of benefit of doubt given to the charged government employee the pay and allowances could be withheld by the competent authority if it felt that the suspension was not wholly unjustified."





>>> "F.R. 54-B(3) Where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8) be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended;'


RITESH RANJAN (Querist) 15 June 2016
Respected Shri P. Venu Sir and Shri Kumar Doab Sir.... Don't know what to say... Just... Vinamra Namaskara... for all your guidance...
Doab Sir, I read the whole FR 52 to 55 very carefully after your post.... and really Sir... no where the term HONOURABLE AQUITTAL appears...
RITESH RANJAN (Querist) 15 June 2016
Respected Sir/s,
Kindly put some light upon as to whether Quashing of an IPC 498A case by the Judgment delivered an Hon'ble High Court on the basis of Compromise can be termed as "on grounds of merit".
Had the Hon'ble Court's analysis resulted in lack of MERIT in application under Cr.P.C. 482, would they have ALLOWED that gracefully and citing clearly that it's for securing ends of justice and prevent harassment of a citizen etc.
And, if a body not superior to the Hon'ble High Court interprets or puts a question over their Judgment of Quashing as NOT on ground of MERIT tantamount to their contempt or not ?
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Expert) 16 June 2016
I am not able to agree or disagree with any view expressed by any expert above as the querist has not even bothered to inform what were the charges.
Kumar Doab (Expert) 16 June 2016
The author may note that there is NO provision for attachment in Experts Section, hence NO attachment is found.


The author could have copied and pasted the document.


As asked by Mr. Sudhir Kumar the author may post the details of the charges.




The author has posted that:

" in matrimonial disputes..............High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings arose out of the FIR based on the compromise entered into between husband and wife."



Taking a cue from it, the subsequent posts were made.
RITESH RANJAN (Querist) 17 June 2016
Again THANKS to Shri Doab Sir, Now it's again open to the respected experts to opine upon the issue please.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Expert) 17 June 2016
Author has decided to keep the nature of chartges as riddle.

As observed by Mr kumar Doab, it can be seen that (i) charges were criminal (ii) charges were out of marriage.

These charges could have been to 498a and have ended in compromise as the complainant did not want to follow in criminal court.

These allegations apart from being criminal misconduct are also professional misconduct for Govt servant and the deptt has every just jurisdiction of not reinstating and initiating disciplinary proceedings inspite of closure of FIR.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Expert) 17 June 2016
It is still open to the author to clarify if the facts of the case are different.
RITESH RANJAN (Querist) 17 June 2016
Respected Shri Sudhir Kumar Sir, I was eagerly waiting for your response sir. Your clarifications are very realistic and ground based.
As in this instant case of mine, you have accurately pointed the matter.
I along with my wife approached the Hon'ble High Court under Cr.P.C. 482 and after some detailed hearing and sessions of minute queries they analyzed and gracefully pronounced the Judgment there by quashing all the criminal proceeding/s arising / arose out of the FIR (U/s IPC 498A/323/DV Act). It is worth to mention their comments gratefully
"“Though the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are to be exercised very sparingly but it can certainly be exercised to render real and substantial justice to the parties. It is exercised to prevent grave miscarriage of justice and when the Court is also convinced that the trial of the case may end in futility. It can also be exercised when the Court has reason to believe that the process of litigation may only cause harassment to a citizen. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the continuance of criminal proceedings in FIR No. ... of ..... dated ....... of .... Police Station Shillong and GR Case No. .... of ..... under Section 498-A/323 and 506 IPC read with Section 9(b)/37(2)(C) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, will amount to abuse of the process of Court and may lead to miscarriage of justice. Hence, in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, I quash the aforesaid proceedings and allow this Criminal petition.”
Now, please sir guide what type of exoneration, acquittal is this and whether this is eligible for grant of full wages for the period of suspension and MORE IMPORTANTLY the PERIOD can be treated as duty or not.
My authorities are of opinion that "Whereas it being not an honourable acquittal from the charges and it was a compromise settlement without any trial, also that he was in judicial custody during most of the period of suspension from 31.5.2012 to 25.09.2012(118 days) 'as such' in accordance with FR 54-B and accordingly the payment will be restricted to subsistence allowance drawn by him already."
One thing the APAR grading for this period (2012-13) awarded to me was Very Good just next to OUTSTANDING.
Kindly guide and help.
It's request to other experts also.
Kumar Doab (Expert) 17 June 2016
You have posted in your 2nd last post that;

"Now it's again open to the respected experts to opine upon the issue please."


Don't post such comments.



Rather post the details asked by Experts like Mr.Sudhir Kumar.



It has been reiterated from beginning that : "place the whole case file before a very able counsel let your counsel make a full note of words and statements etc and structure your representation, so as to defend your long term interest ."



Mr. Sudhir Kumar has rightly observed that: "These allegations apart from being criminal misconduct are also professional misconduct for Govt servant"




You seem to be interested only in some citation to convince the authority.


The authority shall consult its rule book................and also shall think many times to not to set a precedence.



Your reply/representation should cover other aspects also including but not limited to................"If authority does not accept your justifications.........' then you shall be again landing in Tribunals/HC/SC..............




In your last post you have posted some details and may wait for posts from experts.

RITESH RANJAN (Querist) 17 June 2016
Sure Doab Sir.... I wholly agree with you... waiting for Sudhir Sir's comments...
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Expert) 18 June 2016
prima-facie it appears that the case is compromised which does not mean you are acquitted on merit.

the court observed that the prosecution may be futile. It may be futile in court of law but not in departmental case.

If the deptt just lets you off without paying full wages of the suspension period, then it is either their magnanimity or foolishness or ignorance of rules.

The deptt is justified in continuing suspension and issuing a chargehseet on the same grounds on which court has closed the case.
Kumar Doab (Expert) 18 June 2016
Dear Mr. Sudhir Kumar,

Thanks for your last post and moderation in the thread.



Probably there is some error in:

"If the deptt just lets you off without paying full wages of the suspension period, then it is either their magnanimity or foolishness or ignorance of rules."


and you mean to say:


"If the deptt just lets you off by paying full wages of the suspension period, then it is either their magnanimity or foolishness or ignorance of rules."




Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Expert) 18 June 2016
Agree
Kumar Doab (Expert) 18 June 2016
@Author,



>>> You have posted that:

"I along with my wife approached the Hon'ble High Court under Cr.P.C. 482 and after some detailed hearing and sessions of minute queries they analyzed and gracefully pronounced the Judgment there by quashing all the criminal proceeding/s arising / arose out of the FIR (U/s IPC 498A/323/DV Act). "



Your contention is that as all criminal proceedings are quashed, NO FIR exists hence your entire period spent in jail should also be regularized and full wages be paid.




The authority is not agreeable.


Now it is high time that you post the service rules that are applicable to you and relate the rules with your case.



Mr.Sudhir Kumra has also pointed in this direction.


The courts of law as you have seen in your case also examine the matter and surrounding facts.







>>> 'In the present case, the respondent (Consider as ::: you) was acquitted by the .............appellate court. There can be no manner of doubt that the said acquittal would relate back and the initial order of conviction would stand obliterated. On that basis, there can be no manner of doubt that the substratum of the cause that had led to the respondents dismissal/discharge in the present case had ceased to exist. The same would entitle him to be reinstated in service, an act that has been duly performed by the appellant.........(your employer)'






'The issue relating to entitlement to back wages,stands on a somewhat different footing. .............. would appear to be the inability of the employer to avail of the service of the employee due to his incarceration in jail.......................grant of back wages is not automatic and such an entitlement has to be judged in the context of the totality of the facts of a given case.'




"If the respondent could not have remained employed with the appellant....................... during the said period on account of the provisions of the Act, it is difficult to visualise as to how he would be entitled to payment of salary during that period. His subsequent acquittal though obliterates his conviction, does not operate to retrospectively wipe out the legal consequences of the conviction under the Act. The entitlement of the respondent to back wages has to be judged on ................aforesaid basis. His reinstatement, undoubtedly, became ..............due following his acquittal and the same have been granted by the appellant."





"Since the petitioner has earned........acquittal in the criminal proceedings, .......... is liable to be reinstated. The criminal offence committed by the petitioner was not in relation to ..........official duties but was with some private persons.

Petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in service with effect from the date .............served the representation .............. with all consequential benefits. Petitioner would not be entitled to the relief of back wages for the period .......... remained out of service on account of ........... involvement in the criminal case till the date ............served the representation.."









In case you submitted your representation immediately after coming out of jail/ were on bail and thus available for work.................then you may describe it, so that the payment wages for period you were on bail but not taken on job despite representation ..............and period you were in jail, is clearly distinguishable to the authority. Despite it being distinguishable, if the authority declines to pay by a speaking order, then let it be a decision by authority and you can contest it.








Kumar Doab (Expert) 18 June 2016
Dear Mr. Sudhir Kumar,


Kindly help to relate with the exact and extent service rules and respective clauses applicable in this case.

Kumar Doab (Expert) 18 June 2016
@ Author,


The authority is not agreeable.


Now it is high time that you post the service rules that are applicable to you and relate the rules with your case.
Kumar Doab (Expert) 18 June 2016
@ Author,


You may post that the situation arose from circumstances beyond his control...............and relate bring out that 'it is proved that his liability arose from circumstances beyond his control or the detention being held by any competent authority to be wholly unjustified'
RITESH RANJAN (Querist) 19 June 2016
Respected Kumar Doab Sir and Sudhir Kumar Sir, While all this happened back in 2012 [the case filing U/s IPC 498A, DV Act etc., my immediate police custody beyond 48 hours (as bound to be in 498A cases), then my deemed suspension which is also bound under FR, then judicial custody for 02 months and bail thereafter and reinstatement after 01 month of my representation citing the case no where involves any official matter or moral turpitude and yet to be proved)... till date of this subject Memo on which I am seeking kind help of all of you.... I had received no communication/Memo/Chargesheet that any departmental proceeding is running parallel to the criminal one... about which I agree to Shri Sudhir Sir...is possible under rules. Further, it was Judicial Custody what I can understand in Custody of the Hon'ble Magistrate who was hearing my case, a Govt. functionary (so that, if really guilty I may not influence the witnesses and affect the evidences till the I.O. of the police prepares its charge sheet ) When police filed its charge sheet and the Hon'ble Magistrate was satisfied that it's not in interest of justice to further held me in Judicial Custody he released me on bail. That, I also intimated to my authorities means I was very much available to serve them.
Further, in Judgments provided by Doab Sir it has been held that matrimonial disputes are private in nature though in Law books they may fall under category of Criminal Category or Non-compoundable but surely are of private in nature and also do not involve moral turpitude which is the most gross hindrance to accept a Govt. servant as fully exonerated and qualified for service.....
So...my contention is... when there was no intimation of departmental enquiry/proceedings, no issuance of any charge sheet/Memo how come the administrative authorities to interpret a Criminal Case Judgment passed by an Hon'ble High Court, which must have surely gone into the question of merits and has also clearly mentioned ..."may result in harassment of a citizen and to secure end of Justice I allow the petition U/s 482 and quash the FIR and GR.." and has no where mention of benefit of doubt, technical grounds etc.
RITESH RANJAN (Querist) 19 June 2016
Respected Sudhir Sir and Kumar Doab Sir...
Now in view of the above post kindly guide please.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Expert) 19 June 2016
You seem to have a problem for every reply.


You are one of the persons who to not regard the free advise of the experts and make fun of experts by introducing more facts after an opinion has been expressed on sketchy facts.

Facts now introduced are analyses as under.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Expert) 19 June 2016
Respected Kumar Doab Sir and Sudhir Kumar Sir, While all this happened back in 2012 [the case filing U/s IPC 498A, DV Act etc.,

SO YOU WERE ALLEGED OF A CRIME WHICH IS PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AS WELL.

SO DEPTT HAS ALREADY DONE A STUPIDITY. THEY HAVE CAUSED UNDUE FAVOR TO YOU BY NOT INITIATING PARALLEL DEPARTMENT PROCEEDINGS. PERIOD BETWEEN 2012 TO 2016 IS MORE THAN ENOUGH TO COMPLETE DEPTT PROCEEDINGS AND DISMISS A PERSON FROM SERVICE
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Expert) 19 June 2016
my immediate police custody beyond 48 hours (as bound to be in 498A cases), then my deemed suspension which is also bound under FR, then judicial custody for 02 months

SO SUSPENSION WAS NOT UNJUSTIFIED
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Expert) 19 June 2016

reinstatement after 01 month of my representation citing the case no where involves any official matter or moral turpitude and yet to be proved)

IT WAS STUPIDITY OF DEPTT TO ACCEPT SUCH REPRESENTATION OR THEIR MERCY.

ALLEGATION OF THIS NATURE IS NOT PRIVATE AFFAIR OF GOVT SERVANT.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Expert) 19 June 2016

So...my contention is... when there was no intimation of departmental enquiry/proceedings, no issuance of any charge sheet/Memo how come the administrative authorities to interpret a Criminal Case Judgment passed by an Hon'ble High Court, which must have surely gone into the question of merits and has also clearly mentioned ..."may result in harassment of a citizen and to secure end of Justice I allow the petition U/s 482 and quash the FIR and GR.." and has no where mention of benefit of doubt, technical grounds etc.

YOU ARE NOT ACQUITTED ON MERITS AND IT IS IN YOUR INTEREST THAT YOU SHOULD NOT COMPEL DEPTT TO ENHANCE THEIR KNOWLEDGE BY CONSULTING KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSONS AND TO INITIATE DEPTT PROCEEDINGS.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Expert) 19 June 2016
@Mr Kumar Doab

although he has not disclosed who is employer but when he speaks of FR/SR then he is central Govt employee and CCS(CC&A) Rules apply to him.
RITESH RANJAN (Querist) 19 June 2016
Respected Shri Sudhir Kumar Sir,
Yes, I am a Central Govt. Employee and CCS (CCA) Rules apply to me. Further, the facts you are alleging to be posted one by one on this platform for being free you might have forget to go through my respectful submission about your post just two days ago available upwards reads as "Your clarifications are very realistic and ground based.
As in this instant case of mine, you have accurately pointed the matter.
I along with my wife approached the Hon'ble High Court under Cr.P.C. 482 and after some detailed hearing and sessions of minute queries they analyzed and gracefully pronounced the Judgment there by quashing all the criminal proceeding/s arising / arose out of the FIR (U/s IPC 498A/323/DV Act). It is worth to mention their comments gratefully ...."
and WITH DUE RESPECT I HAVE STRONG OBJECTION ON MY DEPARTMENT BEING NAMED STUPID... I respect this place... I earn wages from my Dept. for self and my family livelihood...mere for some misinterpretation by some of it's employee...the whole Dept. should not be blamed for... Please provide solutions with your expertise and help... Case is all open before you now Sir..
Kumar Doab (Expert) 19 June 2016
@ Author,

Mr. Sudhir Kumar has rightly posted and adopted the approach of 'Shake and Stir' you.

You have been in litigation initiated by your family and you are in present situation due to some reasons.

You are trying to get full wages for the period you have been in jail and out of jail on bail.


To support you we have been trying to establish that the matter is private.


Your dept is neither king, god or god like or a provider to us and nor to you.


It has already been posted in this thread that:"Don't post such comments."


It is again pointed out that "Don't post such comments.", for you have posted that:"I HAVE STRONG OBJECTION ON"


We will not be inviting your objections.

If you have objections you are at liberty to seek from somewhere else.


You have been thoroughly supported in this thread and thread is getting prolonged and many experts do not post to long, prolonged and extended queries.


If you err again and attempt to dazzle the authorities, someone may wake from slumber and act being fully aware and with firm hands. Mr. Sudhir Kumar has also posted it; FOR YOU.


This is precisely the zest of messages of Mr. Sudhir Kumar.



You have been sending PM's also to experts and good hearted experts are gathering material to help you.




The courts of law have passed various judgments that nullify previous ones and may pass decision in future too.



So far your representations/reply to the authority are half cooked...................and let me put it straight...................good for nothing.



We have not seen anything published by your authority hence can not comment the approach of your authority is half baked or not.



Let it be very clear that there is nothing posted by you so far that proves or atleast shows that ;"mere for some misinterpretation by some of it's employee...the whole Dept. should not be blamed for."


So far it seems that the authority has acted perfectly in accordance with rules.



You should be rather mindful that it is your personal and private interpretation (that can be termed misinterpretation) of applicable rules, to wriggle out of situation.



After the dispute with your spouse and litigation and action by authority in your dept, you are gentle to the spouse and Dept. However you are still not out of situation.


You are expected to be gentle and thankful to the experts that are exerting to help you, without any cost to you.FREE is not the wrong word.


You can either debate and argue with Experts OR wait for further posts to help you further.



RITESH RANJAN (Querist) 19 June 2016
Sure Doab Sir...
Kumar Doab (Expert) 19 June 2016
"Petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in service with effect from the date .............served the representation .............. with all consequential benefits. Petitioner would not be entitled to the relief of back wages for the period .......... remained out of service on account of ........... involvement in the criminal case till the date ............served the representation.."







The extract posted above and in my previous is observation of the court from:


Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardeep Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Another on 11 July, 2014

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/74122594/
Kumar Doab (Expert) 19 June 2016
Author has posted that:




"when there was no intimation of departmental enquiry/proceedings, no issuance of any charge sheet/Memo"



Shri P. Venu has drawn attention by PM towards:

The statutory position n terms of Rule 10(2)(a) of the CCS(CCA)Rules, 1965



It is felt that the OM's by the Dept/Govt may also be looked into.
Kumar Doab (Expert) 19 June 2016
"2. Attention is invited to the instructions contained in this Departments O.M. No.35014/9/76-Estt. (A), dated 8-8-1977 (copy enclosed) which provides that in the case of a Government servant, who was deemed to have been placed under suspension due to detention in police custody erroneously or without basis and thereafter released without any prosecution having been launched, the competent authority should apply its mind at the time of revocation of the suspension and reinstatement of the official and if he comes to the conclusion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, full pay and allowances may be allowed. These instructions may be kept in view and scrupulously complied with in all cases where deemed suspension is found to be erroneous and the employee concerned is not prosecuted. In all such cases, the deemed suspension under Rule 10 (2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, may be treated as revoked from the date the cause of the suspension itself ceases to exist, i.e., the Government servant is released from police custody without any prosecution having been launched. However, it will be desirable for the purpose of administrative record to make a formal order for revocation of such suspension under Rule 10 (5) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965."







Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Gyan Chand vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 3 November, 2011

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175302395/
Kumar Doab (Expert) 19 June 2016
The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965
RULE 10. SUSPENSION:
Government of India Decisions

http://www.referencer.in/CS_Regulations/CCS(CCA)Rules1965/GOI_Decisions_10.aspx





(3) How suspension is to be regulated during pendency of criminal proceedings, arrests, detention etc



"(d) When a Government servant who is deemed to be under suspension in the circumstances mentioned in clause (a) or who is suspended in circumstances mentioned in clause (b) is re-instated without taking disciplinary proceedings against him, his pay and allowances for the period of suspension will be regulated under FR 54 i.e., in event of his being acquitted of blame or if the proceedings taken against him was for his arrest for debt or it being proved that his liability arose from circumstances beyond his control or the detention being held by any competent authority to be wholly unjustified, the case may be dealt with under FR 54 (2), otherwise it may be dealt with under FR 54 (3).




[M.O.F. No. F.15(8)-E IV/57, dated 28th March, 1959]
"

Kumar Doab (Expert) 19 June 2016


"The facts discussed in the above said case are quite distinguishable with those in this case. In the case before the Supreme Court, the Management did not justify its decision to place the employee under suspension in view of pendency of criminal case and it had been paying 3/4th of his salary during the period of suspension, thereafter the employee initiated proceedings for remaining 1/4th his salary for the said period, and finally the Supreme Court recognised his rights to get the said amount. The Supreme Court has candidly observed that the management has not held the suspension justified because, 3/4th of the salary was ordered to paid to the employee. Based on these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the employee was entitled to get full back wages throughout. But, the facts in this case are otherwise. The Management has held the suspension was justified and subsistence allowance alone was paid to the employee, but not any portion of salary. Hence, the circumstances of this case stand on a different footing.

17. Summarising all, as stated by the Management, the suspension order passed by the Management was justified and that the employee was not entitled to get any pay and allowances during the period of suspension. The Central Administrative Tribunal, on erroneous premise, has concluded that after the acquittal in the Criminal cases, on reinstatement, the employee is entitled for full backwages, during the period of suspension. The said conclusion of the Tribunal is not acceptable, which deserves to be set aside."



Madras High Court
Union Of India vs R.P.Ramesh Murugan on 26 April, 2007

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/172911/
Kumar Doab (Expert) 19 June 2016
In short;




The facts and circumstances of the case, publications by the authority to the employee should be carefully pursued...........................than harping much and exclusively on principles made known by rules etc and judicial precedents.




The reply of the author should be carefully structured.



The decision of the authority is certainly not immune from judicial review.


Kumar Doab (Expert) 19 June 2016
It is brought to notice that:


"there was a quarrel between the parties" ..................and such quarrel resulted in all cases, FIR and employee was arrested on the same day to aid the investigation.




Thus supplementary affidavit filed by Court’s order containing the terms of settlement of disputes, allegations against each other , FIR, etc should also be examined.
Kumar Doab (Expert) 19 June 2016
The author has brought to notice that;



"I was placed under deemed suspension only because of the hasty action on the part of the Police."


Did police submit its investigation report? Did Dept. take cognizance of investigation report?



Would it be not pertinent to mention that Dept also acted in haste without acquiring the reports and assessing the reports?
Kumar Doab (Expert) 19 June 2016
Once again a reference is being made to;



Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Gyan Chand vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 3 November, 2011

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175302395/





2. In terms of general instructions issued by the Department of Personnel & Training vide O.M. No.11012/8/87-Estt. (A), dated 22.6.1987, Government takes a very serious view of offences against women. Relevant excerpt of said O.M. reads as under:-

2. As Government takes a very serious view of offences against women, Government has reviewed the provisions in the rules in regard to placing a Government servant under suspension if he is accused of involvement in a case of dowry death as defined in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.






The author has posted that it was a Quarrel between husband and wife that gave birth of all cases.
Kumar Doab (Expert) 19 June 2016
Once again a reference is being made to;



Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Gyan Chand vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 3 November, 2011

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175302395/




"(5) Deemed suspension to continue to be operative unless modified or revoked  Rule 10 (2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 :



2. A question whether the order of suspension in a case covered under Rule 10 (2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has limited operation for the period of detention and not beyond it, was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajiv Kumar [2003 (5) SCALE 297]. Allowing the appeals of the Union of India in this case, the Supreme Court has held that the order in terms of Rule 10 (2) is not restricted in its point of duration or efficacy to the actual period of detention only. It continues to be operative unless modified or revoked under sub-rule (5) (c) as provided in sub-rule 5 (a) or Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.





3. Ministries / Departments are requested to bring the above ruling of the Supreme Court to the notice of all concerned so that the same is appropriately referred to in all cases where the question of validity of continued suspension after release from detention of a Government servant comes up for consideration before the CAT, High Court or Supreme Court."
Kumar Doab (Expert) 19 June 2016
The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964

http://www.referencer.in/CS_Regulations/CCS(Conduct)Rules1964/Rule_13.aspx




13-A. Dowry

No Government servant shall-

(i) give or take or abet the giving or taking of dowry; or

(ii) demand directly or indirectly, from the parent or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry.

Explanation:- For the purposes of this rule, ‘dowry’ has the same meaning as in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961(28 of 1961).




The author has posted that it was a Quarrel between husband and wife that gave birth of all cases.
P. Venu (Expert) 20 June 2016
Subsequent to my last posting, I had opportunity of perusing, with much profit, the decision of the High Court (which could be accessed at http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/shb/UNS/judgement/09-09-2015/UNS09092015CrPet0000052015.pdf) quashing the FIR against the author. And it appears that there are certain redeeming feature which could be helpful to the author.

Firstly, the settlement that had taken place between the author and his wife was in respect of the matrimonial disputes between them. There was no settlement or compromise as to the FIR lodged by the wife; the fact is that she did not want to proceed with the criminal proceedings thereafter. It could be that she had overreacted to the quarrel among them and had rushed to the Police Station (may be so advised) so that her husband (the author) is placed in a pincer. This aspect is a recurring feature of the 498A which the Supreme Court has already taken note of and has issued direction that there should be no hasty arrests in such cases.

Secondly, the very FIR had been quashed thus rendering the criminal proceedings without a foundation.

Thirdly, the State of Meghalaya was the second respondent in the Petition. They had not press for further trial or otherwise oppose the Petition.

thus there are many a feature on the bais of which the author can try to convince the DA it was a case of honourable acquittal as far the criminal proceedings are concerned. (The matrimonial disputes which they had settled were civil in nature)

Secondly, there has been a healthy settlement in this case. The author and his wife has settled their disputes in the real sense of the term and have been living together peacefully.

In view of the above position he can inform the disciplinary authority that the action of the Police in making the arrest was rather hasty leading to the suspension that was wholly unjustified.

The above features also suggests why the the DA, in its wisdom, has not proceeded departmentally.
Kumar Doab (Expert) 20 June 2016
Dear Shri P. Venu,


Sir,



>>> You had very kindly shared the excerpts of above mentioned decision mentioned in your last post with me, yesterday i.e. Meghalaya HC, dated:9/9/2015.


I had gone thru it yesterday.

Subsequently I have posted yesterday.



>> The FIR was lodged on 31/5/2012 and the author was arrested on the same day. Obviously, the arrest was on the version of the complainant and to aid the investigation.


'The FIR was registered under Section 498A/323/506 IPC
read with Section 9(b)/37(2)(C) of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the
criminal proceedings have been running in the Court
of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong,
under G.R. Case No. 645(A) of 2012.'



Hope the authority shall not take a strong view of section and criminal proceedings.


The Meghalaya HC has noted that:......." and now we as
the parties have realized our fault..............That it is assured that we Shri. Ritesh Ranjan and
Smti. Smita Verma Ranja, being husband and wife
will co-operate each other in all respects in our lives."



Hope the authority shall concur with HC and also that court has affixed some responsibility on the wife also. Wife is the complainant!!!!



The HC has also pointed that ....'parties hereto want to put an end of
all our allegations against each other....................the parties have already settled all the
complaints, disputes between us '.



Wife i.e complainant is on the parties and rather party that initiated complaint.




The above mentioned judgments has made reference to the judgments delivered by Three Judge Bench of the apex court.


'There has been an outburst of matrimonial
disputes in recent times. ....................when the court is
convinced, on the basis of material on record, that
allowing the proceedings to continue would be an
abuse of the process of the court or that the ends
of justice require that the proceedings ought to be
quashed. '




>>> I have not gone thru any SCN issued to the author.




>>> I have already posted:


---"The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965
RULE 10. SUSPENSION:
Government of India Decisions

http://www.referencer.in/CS_Regulations/CCS(CCA)Rules1965/GOI_Decisions_10.aspx





(3) How suspension is to be regulated during pendency of criminal proceedings, arrests, detention etc



"(d) '.................or it being proved that his liability arose from circumstances beyond his control



(The FIR was lodged on 31/5/2012 and the author was arrested on the same day.).



However later the sense seems to have prevailed upon wife/complainant.




---.“This rule has been now amended and the words 'honorably acquitted' do not appear in F.R. 54-B............



The removal of the words honorably acquitted makes a substantial difference. The only thing that has now to be seen by the competent authority is whether the suspension was wholly unjustified.......................................... and not whether the Govt. servant was "honorably acquitted'.”





>>> You have posted that:


"There was no settlement or compromise as to the FIR lodged by the wife; the fact is that she did not want to proceed with the criminal proceedings thereafter. It could be that she had overreacted to the quarrel among them and had rushed to the Police Station (may be so advised) '



I have not gone thru any other document that wife/complaint has admitted.


If there is then it is further, good.


The author is at liberty to cite 'Supreme Court has already taken note of and has issued direction that there should be no hasty arrests in such cases.'




>>> 'the State of Meghalaya was the second respondent in the Petition. They had not press for further trial or otherwise oppose the Petition.'




>>> 'there are many a feature on the bais of which the author can try to convince the DA it was a case of honourable acquittal as far the criminal proceedings are concerned. (The matrimonial disputes which they had settled were civil in nature)'



The author may attempt to convince the authority.



>>> 'DA, in its wisdom, has not proceeded departmentally.'


The DA has already passed the order to pay subsistence allowance.




The author only needs to establish his eligibility for full pay................during the period he was in jail ( he was arrested on the same day).................and during the period he was out on bail ( The Punjab and Haryana HC judgment has already been cited).





We have exerted to do our best.





Kumar Doab (Expert) 20 June 2016
The author may now cultivate further tom get a favorable decision.

Needless to mention that the decision by authority is not immune from judicial review.
RITESH RANJAN (Querist) 20 June 2016
Respected P. Venu Sir, the last but most important line tells it all, that's what the then authority who really admired my devotion to duty told me " We know you... so there is nothing from Departmental side..".
Only God knows, what happened within last 04 or 05 months...
I am obliged Sir... for your help...
RITESH RANJAN (Querist) 20 June 2016
Thanks Shri Kumar Doab Sir... For your minute analysis..
Kumar Doab (Expert) 20 June 2016
Where is this line written by the authority;..."the last but most important line tells it all, that's what the then authority who really admired my devotion to duty told me " We know you... so there is nothing from Departmental side..".?
RITESH RANJAN (Querist) 20 June 2016
Respected Kumar Doab Sir, It's not what is written any where. It's what the last line of Shri Venu Sir's previous post made me remember.
Dr J C Vashista (Expert) 21 June 2016
@ Ritesh Ranjan,
You have adequately (much more that required) been advised by experts, especially Mr. Kumar Doab and Mr. Sudhir Kumar, sparing their valuable time out of their very busy schedule, involving their intelligence/ability and expertise for a social cause, FREE OF COST, for which you must feel obliged.

You have unnecessarily been dragging this query on one or the other point, which is abuse of this platform meant to help out needy litigants to guide them and not to make them so wise/dependent that they must rely upon them that too FREE OF COST, since all of the experts are professional first, who are entitled and must be paid fees for utilization of their intellectual proprietary/right.

Please stop this thread, contact, consult and engage a prudent local lawyer if you are still having some more questions, doubts, queries in your own benefit/interest.

Kumar Doab (Expert) 03 October 2016
You have probably duly submitted to authority that: criminal case registered against you and it ended in an acquittal on account of compromise between the parties involved in the criminal case.


So it might be a ground for considering it as 'Honorably Acquitted'.



Are you cleared of the charge as of now?
Kumar Doab (Expert) 04 October 2016
You have been replied in another thread on the same query;


http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/details.asp?mod_id=138201&offset=2



I have sent link to you.



You may go thru it and also in specific: Para18.

Thereafter you may discuss it.
Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 05 October 2016
Hard work done by expert Kumar Doab and expert Sudhir Kumar ji, special appreciation from my side.
Kumar Doab (Expert) 06 October 2016
>>> Already posted:


“This rule has been now amended and the words 'honorably acquitted' do not appear in F.R. 54-B............".



""(d) When a Government servant who is deemed to be under suspension in the circumstances............. in event of his being acquitted of blame................
"
Kumar Doab (Expert) 06 October 2016
The previous post have been reminded since employee shall need to relate with rules and press his right.
Kumar Doab (Expert) 06 October 2016
The author has claimed compromise. The employee has not concealed compromise from authorities.



The employer has shrieked 'Acquittal by Compromise' is not 'Honorable Acquittal'.



The apex court and courts seem to agree that acquittal by ................Compromise..........is 'Honorable Acquittal'....











>>> Acquittal in a criminal case, for want of evidence is an acquittal on merit.



An employee/candidate, cannot be denied his right ...... merely on the ground that his acquittal was on technical grounds and thus on ‘Honorable’.


Acquittal in a criminal case for want of evidence is an acquittal on merit.
The state government in the recent case was of the view that person's acquittal in a murder case was on technical grounds and not "honorable acquittal" because all the witnesses had turned hostile.

While the court has held that, the moment a criminal charge fails in a court of law, the person would be deemed to be acquitted of the blame, and that there are no terms like 'honorable acquittal' and 'technical acquittal' of an accused.

Once the allegation which was against the petitioner could not be established by evidence, it cannot be said that the acquittal was on some technical ground. Acquittal in a criminal case for want of evidence is an acquittal on merit. There is no provision for "honourable acquittal" in criminal trial as per criminal jurisprudence. As such, the acquittal of the petitioner has to be viewed as an honourable acquittal





Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pawan Kumar vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 8 April, 2015
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4568 of 2013

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/13559865/






>>> 18. Further, undisputedly, there has been no allegation of concealment of the fact that a

criminal case was registered against him by the appellant. Thus, the appellant has honestly disclosed in his verification application submitted to the selection authority that there was a criminal case registered against him and that it ended in an acquittal on account of compromise between the parties involved in the criminal case, he cannot be denied an opportunity to qualify ………………




JOGINDER SINGH V/S UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH, decided on Tuesday, November 11, 2014.
[ In the Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 2325 of 2009 & Civil Appeal No. 10126 of 2014 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 30798 of 2008). ]



http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/ac%20232509p.txt








RITESH RANJAN (Querist) 06 October 2016
Respected Doab Sir... I have really no words to express my gratitude... You are a true... empathetic...GUIDE...Sir, I am waiting for the decision of the Competent Authority...as soon as it comes... I will share the same at this forum... If positive for reference to all similarly placed as myself...if otherwise, for further kind guidance from your expert self... Thanks again Sir... for all your help...motivation and guidance...and SPECIAL REGARDS to Shri Venu Sir..
Kumar Doab (Expert) 07 October 2016
I had sent some inputs to Mr. Venu.

Mr.Venu has not reverted.

Might be he has reverted to you.
Kumar Doab (Expert) 07 October 2016
You are welcome.

Wish you the very best.
RITESH RANJAN (Querist) 13 December 2016
Respected Sir/s, The decision (Order) of the Competent Authority (served on me today) reg. subject of my previous attachment is humbly appended below for examination and guidance by your expert part please. ORDER WHEREAS Shri Ritesh Ranjan, Junior Hindi Translator was issued with Memorandum dated 16.5.2016 (my previous attachment) intimating that criminal case was registered against him on the complaint made by his wife. 2. AND WHEREAS Shri Ritesh Ranjan was also intimated that the Hon'ble High Court of Meghalaya quashed the above criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise entered between both the parties. Since, it was a compromise settlement and not on honorable acquittal, the period of suspension is proposed "as such" in accordance with FR 54-B and payment restricted to subsistence allowance drawn by him. 3. AND WHEREAS the representation dated 21.6.2016 of Shri Ritesh Ranjan against the above proposed action has been perused and the following observations are made : (i) As per guidelines in vogue, where the 'Suspension' is considered subsequently as "unjustified" in such cases full pay and allowances to which one is entitled, is to be paid. (ii) Shri Ritesh Ranjan was placed under suspension on account of Criminal Case U/s 498A, 323 & 506 of IPC filed against him which are serious charges. In inebriated condition, he had assaulted his wife and daughter on 30.5.2012 while occupying departmental accomodation. Shri Ritesh Ranjan was arrested by the police on 31.05.2012 and detained in custody. (iii) In the circumstances stated above, it cannot be said that the suspension of Shri Ritesh Ranjan during the period from 31.5.2012 to 20.9.2012 was wholly unjustified. Shri Ritesh Ranjan is therefore not entitled to full pay and allowances for the period of suspension. 4. NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned in exercise of powers conferred on him under Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, hereby order that the period of suspension of Shri Ritesh Ranjan from 31.5.2012 to 25.09.2012 (118 days) be 'AS SUCH' in accordance with FR 54-B and the payment restricted to subsistence allowance drawn by him. Sd/- Disciplinary Authority

Read more at: http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/details.asp?mod_id=138201&offset=3
P. Venu (Expert) 14 December 2016
The immediate action should be to file an Appeal in terms of Rule 23 of the CCS(CCA) Rules highlighting therein that:

(i) the compromise settlement was in respect of the matrimonial dispute and not in respect of the allegations as to criminal offence;

(ii) As to the criminal charges, the very FIR had been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court; as such nothing survives as to the allegation as to criminal offences; and

(iii) The disciplinary authority has blindly relied on the allegation in the FIR in arriving at the conclusion, "In inebriated condition, he had assaulted his wife and daughter on 30.5.2012 while occupying departmental accomodation" without any finding as to the truth of the said allegation. As such, the decision of the DA suffers from non-application of mind and injudicous.
Kumar Doab (Expert) 14 December 2016
Pursue the recourse.
RITESH RANJAN (Querist) 14 December 2016
Respected P Venu Sir and Kumar Doab Sir, Heartfelt Gratitude.... I will follow...
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Expert) 14 December 2016
appeal should be made (within 45 days) though there are little chances of success.

Kumar Doab (Expert) 14 December 2016
I have already replied to your PM's.


You may preferably prepare as you are likely to land up in court of law.
Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 14 December 2016
Agree with the expert Sudhir Kumar.
RITESH RANJAN (Querist) 15 December 2016
Respected P.Venu Sir, Kumar Doab Sir and Sudhir Kumar Sir,

Please be kind to explain the consequences and implications of

"NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned in exercise of powers conferred on him under Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, hereby order that the period of suspension of Shri Ritesh Ranjan from 31.5.2012 to 25.09.2012 (118 days) be 'AS SUCH' in accordance with FR 54-B and the payment restricted to subsistence allowance drawn by him.'

Actually, my MACP is also due since January, 2014 and on one representation of mine for MACP has been turned down two weeks ago citing that my case is not clear from VIGILANCE ANGLE.

I need to understand these before contacting an eminent service lawyer at Guwahati. Please guide and help.
RITESH RANJAN (Querist) 19 July 2017
Respected Experts,
Appended below is my Appeal in terms of Rule 23 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 submitted on 17th January, 2017 which remains unanswered till dated (even after 06 months) :

Ref: AMDER, Hyderabad Memorandum No. AMD-52/3/3011-Adm-II/377 Dated 16th May, 2016
(ii) My humble representation dated 21st June, 2016 against the aforecited Memorandum/SCN.
(iii) AMDER, Hyderabad Order No. AMD-52/2/2011/Adm.II/789 Dated 22nd November, 2016.
(iv) Copy of the Judgement and Order gracefully delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Meghalaya in Crl. Petn. No. 05 of 2016 Dated 09th September, 2015.
Respected Sir,
The copy/ies of the ref. documents are humbly enclosed for kind perusal and examination. In context of the Order (Ref iii) your most faithful applicant begs to state:
1. That,it is submitted that the impugned Order relies on charges only without weighing the underlying facts, the laid legal provisions and the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
2. That, the Hon'ble High Court of Meghalaya has quashed FIR No. 39 of 2012 dated 31st May, 2012 vide their Orderr (Ref.iv) carrying the subject charges thus, nullifying them only after due circumspective and careful consideration of the relevant facts, legal provisions and pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
3. That, the Order (ref iii) has been passed under surmise of non-existing facts [submitted before the Disciplinary Authority vide Ref (ii)] and lacks understanding of the basic rationale that the question of ACQUITTAL whether 'honourable', 'due to benefits of doubt' etc arises only when a TRIAL takes place.
4. That, in this instant matter, the very foundation of the Crimianal Case i.e., FIR No. 39 of 2012 dated 31st May, 2012 was quashed hence, nullified by the Hon'ble High Court of Meghalaya and as such nothing as to the allegations or charges as to criminal offences survived before any sub-ordinate court to run a trial.
5. That the 'amicable mutual settlement of matrimonial disputes' and 'saving the basic and pious social institute of marriage' by all possible means of counseling for conciliation, cooling off period etc., are among the prime and guiding mandates of the Family Courts or any other Hon'ble Court adjudicating matrimonial disputes. Even, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has gracefully laid down the guidelines to be adopted as quoted in Para 3 of the Order (Ref.iv).
6. That, undermining of the afore cited sacrosanct mandates by the impugned Order is akin to deject the provisions envisaged in the Article 20 & 21 of the India Constitution, the Family Courts Act, 1984 (An act to provide the conciliation in and speedy settlement of, disputes relating to marriages and family affairs and for matters connected here with) and pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding matrimonial discords and their settlements.
PRAYER
Requesting kind appraisal of the Ref.(i) to (iv) in light of the above submissions, it is humbly prayed that :
1. The impugned order may please be set aside.
2. The prayer submitted vide my representation (Ref.ii) may please be granted.
3. Any other relief which your scient and just self may deem fit under the facts and circumstances be granted.
For which act of kindness, your humblest ever applicant shall ever pray.
Yours faithfully,
Ritesh Ranjan
Place : Shillong
Date : 17th January, 2017

NOW LEARNED JURISTS, my humble query is since my Appeal is still unattended after a lapse of 06 months, what should be my next course of action. Kindly guide.
I shall remain grateful.
RITESH RANJAN (Querist) 18 August 2017
Respected Jurists,
At the onset I would with utmost humbleness submit my gratitude towards to Shri Venu Sir and Shri Doab Sir. It was only their guidance, true knowledge and empathy towards the needy, I today earned JUSTICE and all due to their encouragement and help.
Secondly, some experts expressing not able to understand the matter even when already distinguished experts started sharing their expert views and then calling a Department an IDIOT, I do humbly again request to expand their thought process beyond self considering omniscient and must choose rather ought follow the reasonable one.
Further, some experts expressing their anguish that I continued my query without paying, who however did nothing but endorsing or praising views of other experts and are eagerly available on other platforms for fully or even partially paid consultation. My humble request is if they do not find a matter suitable for their professional desires they are free not to respond. Why don't they declare and provide option that they will only contribute after being paid only ????
And at last and for ever I express my heartfelt gratitude towards Shri Venu Sir and Shri Doab Sir and all other learned experts who sympathetically contributed and guided me toward the GOAL. I wish them the Best of Health and Happiness.
Regards,
Ritesh Ranjan
Kumar Doab (Expert) 18 August 2017
You are welcome...................!
Kumar Doab (Expert) 18 August 2017
Wish you the very best......................
RITESH RANJAN (Querist) 18 August 2017
Respected Doab Sir,
Kindly convey my emotions fulllllllll of gratitude and regards to your close friend Shri Venu Sir also.... May I know where do you practice Sir ? And may I submit... Venu Sir was so muchhhhhh helpful and positively inspiring that he even sent me a draft appeal. And you... Sir, your kind self evaluated my submissions so minutely and reasonably.... I can understand and shall remain ever indebted for the hard work and invaluable time you spared for me for nothing but, to help a suffering citizen. I really don't have words right now to express especially regarding you kind duo.... Sir, you have my profile... any service in line with you and Venu Sir.... I shall be always ready.... in REAL MEANS....
Yours.
Ritesh Ranjan
Guest (Expert) 19 August 2017
Dear Ritesh Ranjan,

In my opinion, if acquitted, you were entitled to get full wages for the period of suspension and period required to be treated as duty for all purposes. As you stated that you have been able to earn justice, but you have not mentioned anywhere what justice finally you could get, whether on appeal from the court or from the Appellate Authority?

Has your suspension period been regulated as duty for all purposes?
Kumar Doab (Expert) 19 August 2017
Your thanks posted for Mr. P.Venu have reached Mr. P.Venu.
Kumar Doab (Expert) 19 August 2017
Dear Mr. P.Venu,

I post my thanks and also on behalf of querist for helping the querist.
RITESH RANJAN (Querist) 19 August 2017
Respected P.S Dhingra sir, ALL MEANS....
Kumar Doab (Expert) 19 August 2017
Wish you the very best.............
Guest (Expert) 19 August 2017
A systematically effective pursuit was/is is required in your case.


You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login now



Similar Resolved Queries :





Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query