J. K. Mathur, J. - (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks a direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the charge-sheet dated 7-6-1989 Issued by the Assistant Security Commissioner and for a direction in the nature of mandamus requiring the opposite parties to pay salary to the petitioner for a period between 24-12-1985 and 28-11-1988.
(2.) The petitioner, as alleged by him, is working as a constable Railway Protection Force since August, 1965 On 23-12-1985 when he was going back to his home after duty from Carriage and Wagon Workshop, he was apprehended by A.S.I. Chandra Bali Ram and constables alleging that the petitioner was carrying a bundle of aluminium wire. The petitioner had purchased this wire from a shop in Naka for Rs. 64/-. It was, however, alleged that it was a railway property which had been stolen by the petitioner from the workshop. The petitioner informed this fact to the aforesaid officers and also told him that he bad not carried the wire inside the workshop but the false case was registered against him at crime No. 1 of 1985 under Section 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. The petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 23-12-1985 in view of aforesaid case instituted against him. The opposite parties did not increase the subsistence allowance of the petitioner inspite of repeated reminders, violating the instructions to the contrary. However, he was finally acquitted on 6-4-1988 by the Judicial Magistrate, Northern Railway, Lucknow. The aluminium wire was returned to the petitioner. Even after his acquittal the suspension was not revoked till 28-11-1988. The petitioner made & representation to be paid his salary for the period of suspension. Instead of paying salary to him he was informed that an enquiry was proposed to be instituted against him. A charge-sheet dated 7-6-1989 was served, upon him. Charge-sheet is in respect of facts which have been decided by the court. It does not mention any evidence sought to be relied upon nor does it give the documents. It is actuated by mala fide. He represented against having been served the charge-sheet but no action has been taken by the opposite party. According to the petitioner he cannot be proceeded against on the basis of charge-sheet as the allegations even if taken to be correct do not constitute misconduct.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite parties controverting the allegations made in the petition.;