A.P. Bhattacharya,J. - (1.) These two applications, namely, T.A. 2050 of 1986 and T.A. 2051 of 1986 are taken up together as they were heard analogously. Applicants of T.A. 2050 of 1986 are Shri Satya Prasad Basak and three others, whereas applicants of T A. 2051 of 1986 are Shri Mrinal Bhusan Roy and five others. They filed two separate writ petitions in the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta against the Unison of India, represented by the General Manager, Eastern Railway and eleven others which by operation of Sec. 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 came to this Tribunal by way of transfer for disposal.
(2.) The facts of both the cases are similar. The applicants of T.A. 2050 of 1986 were holding Class -III posts whereas the applicants of T.A. 2051 of 1986 were holding Class -IV posts in the Eastern Railway. On 2.10.1971 the said railway administration made complaint against them to the concerned police station alleging that they had formed an unlawful assembly at Ranaghat railway station and wrongfully confined the de facto complainants. On the basis of that complaint G.R. case No. 2202 of 1971 was started against them. On the basis of that complaint and as they were detained in police custody for more than 48 hours orders were issued on 14.10.1971 placing them under suspension. Prior to that another complaint was made against them on 21.8.1971 on the basis of which G.R. Case No. 2193 of 1971 was started. G.R. Case No. 2202 of 1971 was heard by the learned Judicial Magistrate at Ranaghat. In that case the learned Magistrate held the accused persons guilty under the Ss. charged, but considering that, that was the first time they had committed the offences the accused persons were admonished. The applicants i.e. the accused persons of those cases preferred an appeal to the learned Sessions Judge, Nadia. In Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1979 the learned Sessions Judge set aside the judgement passed by the learned Magistrate and acquitted the applicants of the charges. The judgement by the learned Sessions Judge was passed on 9.6.1979. In G.R. Case No. 2193 of 1971 the learned Magistrate acquitted all the accused persons of the charges. The applicants contend that before the aforesaid orders of acquittal were passed by the concerned Courts they were dismissed from service under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. Subsequently, they were all reinstated to their former posts. The applicants further contend that the suspension orders passed against them were subsequently revoked by the competent authority. It is their contention that since the revocation of the suspension orders the period during which they were kept under suspension has not been treated as on duty. To the contrary the said period has been treated as on suspension. It is the contention of the applicants that in view of the orders of acquittal passed by the competent Courts the aforesaid period cannot be treated as on suspension. Besides, during the said period they had not been given their increments and other service benefits. Being aggrieved by that the applicants had filed the instant applications.
(3.) Both the cases have been contested by the respondents. It is the main contention of the respondents that as the applicants had not been honourably acquitted of the charges framed against them and as they had been acquitted under the benefit of doubt the period of suspension should be treated as on suspension and not as on duty.;