- (1.) This Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and has considered the relevant materials on record. The respondent Nos. 2 and 5 in the writ petition (W.P. 5806 (W) of 2001) are the appellants in the instant appeal. The writ petitioner is the respondent No. 1 in the instant appeal. The order challenged in the instant appeal is an order dated 7.2.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the said W.P. 5806 (W) of 2001. It appears that the writ petitioner is an employee of the Airports Authority of India i.e. an employee under the appellants. The writ petitioner was implicated in a criminal case and there is no dispute that a criminal case was initiated against the writ petitioner on the charge that the writ petitioner has accepted bribe. The said criminal case went up for trial but it was found that the petitioner was not guilty of any offence and the writ petitioner was acquitted by the Criminal Court on a positive finding. However, during the period the petitioner faced trial, he was kept under suspension by the authority concerned. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the authorities concerned did not proceed against the writ petitioner departmentally. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 submitted that the writ petitioner was in jail only for a period of 48 hours and thereafter the writ petitioner was released on bail. The learned Advocate for the appellants did not dispute such submission of the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1.
(2.) It further appears that after the writ petitioner was acquitted by the Criminal Court, the writ petitioner approached the authorities concerned for reinstatement in service but the authority concerned remained inactive in the matter which compelled the Writ petitioner to move this Court in a writ proceeding on an earlier occasion. However, ultimately the authority concerned reinstated the writ petitioner in service but without any back wages. It appears that the authority concerned i.e. the appellant No. 2 by order dated 8.3.2001 ordered that the order of suspension is revoked and the writ petitioner is reinstated in his service as Junior Engineer (Civil) with effect from 8.3.2001 but the writ petitioner's period of absence during the period of suspension will not be treated as period spent on duty and such reinstatement is being done without any back wages. It will also appear from the said order dated 8.3.2001 that the appellant No. 2 took into consideration the past records of the writ petitioner and the said appellant No. 2 observed in the said order that during the year 1984 the writ petitioner's two increments were stopped for submission of fake inspection report pertaining to release of S.B.A. instalments for construction of house by an employee. It was also observed by the appellant No. 2 in the said order that the writ petitioner did not render any service to the organization concerned during the period of suspension.
(3.) Challenging such order dated 8.3.2001 passed by the appellant No. 2, the writ petitioner moved the aforesaid writ petition and a learned Single Judge by the said order dated 7.2.2005 was pleased to direct the authority concerned to grant the writ petitioner full back wages by treating the writ petitioner as on duty in respect of the period of suspension and his Lordship was pleased to modify the said order passed by the appellant No. 2 accordingly. The appellants have challenged the said order dated 7.2.2005 in the instant appeal.;