UNION OF INDIA Vs. GOGARA PALA GELLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-original applicant was selected and working as ED BPM with the present petitioners since October, 1989. He was involved in the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34, 120B, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Police arrested him for the said offence on 19.5.1991. He was charge- sheeted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and other offences and remained in police custody. On 37th day his services were terminated.

(2.) It appears that the original applicant was arrested for the serious offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and hence the petitioners thought it not fit to continue him in service. Therefore, by an order dated 10.7.1991 (Annexure-C) his services were terminated. Aggrieved of this order of termination, the original applicant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (for short ?Tribunal?) with a copy of the judgment and order of acquittal dated 2.7.1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morbi acquitting him for all the charges including the main charge of 302 of Indian Penal Code. Prior to that he had also made a representation to the present petitioners for taking him back into service. Along with the said representation copy of the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge was annexed, but there was no response. Therefore, he approached the Tribunal by way of O.A.

(3.) The learned Tribunal after considering the fact that the original applicant was acquitted by the competent criminal court was of the opinion that his case was required to be considered for reinstatement by the employer. Accordingly, Original Application No.104 of 1992 filed by the original applicant was allowed and the present petitioners were directed to review their decision of terminating the applicant's services and to reinstate the original applicant within 8 weeks from the date of the receipt of the order. Regarding back wages, the learned Tribunal left it to the original applicant to make proper application to the authority within one month form the date of the reinstatement and the authority was directed to decide the question of back wages within 3 months from the date of the receipt of such representation. However, the learned Tribunal also made it clear that the break shall count for qualifying service for increments/promotion/pension of the applicant. This impugned judgment and order dated 11.11.1997 passed by the learned Tribunal is challenged in this petition. It is labelled as petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but strictly speaking it is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the scope of which is very narrow and limited. Unless there is jurisdictional error, this court cannot interfere with such orders passed by the learned Tribunal in its limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. There is no error of jurisdiction in this case.