The respondent Department re-visited the dismissal order dated Augand the petitioner was reinstated in service on Novemwith notional benefits, but without any arrears or back wages for the period of dismissal. The order became final as no appeal or revision was filed against it by the Department.ġ4. Petitioner was acquitted from all the criminal charges.ġ3. Criminal Appeal was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, vide order dated June 30, 2015.ġ2. Petitioner also filed Criminal Appeal against his conviction and sentence.ġ1. Petitioner filed Departmental Appeal but the appeal was dismissed.ġ0. Further, it was also ordered that the period of his suspension from Novemto Jbe treated as period not spent on duty for all intents and purposes. Pursuant thereto, on August 14, 2014, he was dismissed from service.ĩ. In criminal case he was convicted and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of five months along with a fine of ₹1,000/- vide order dt. The Department decided that the issue of suspension period would be decided after the decision of the criminal case, he was reinstated in service vide order dt.Ĩ. the petitioner was awarded punishment of forfeiture, of five years of approved service and he remained under suspension in view of the pending criminal case.ħ. After re-instatement, Departmental enquiry was initiated, vide order dt. Petitioner was re-instated in service pursuant to the order of the Tribunal but he was deemed to be under suspension from the date of dismissal & it was also ordered that he is not entitled to any back wages and the intervening period from the date of issue of reinstatement order to the date of joining will be treated being on leave.Ħ. Tribunal ordered for reinstatement in services, vide order dt.ĥ. Petitioner challenged the dismissal order before the Tribunal in the year 2010.Ĥ. He was dismissed from service under Article 311 (2)(b) * of the Constitution of India, and his suspension period from 18.11.96 till the date of his dismissal (12.12.96) was treated as period not spent on duty.ģ11(2)(b ) * Where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiryģ. The petitioner, a Constable in Delhi Police, was arrested on Novemfor his involvement in a case under Section 379IPC (theft) and Section 420IPC ( cheating & dishonestly inducing delivery of property). WP 1078/2018 Disposed of by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on īy a Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |