SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner suffered a conviction by the trial court vide judgment dated 16.12.1987 under Section 409 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of R.300/ -. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was working as EDPM (Extra Departmental Sub Post Master), Varpal Sub Post Office and was alleged to have extracted currency notes amounting to Rs.3,300/ - from insured parcels.
(2.) THE conviction was set aside by the Appellate Court on 05.10.1988, remanding the case for re -trial. However, once again the trial court convicted the petitioner and this time, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs.300/ -. The petitioner once again preferred an appeal, which was accepted on 04.10.1993 setting aside the conviction and sentence. Shri R. K. Gupta, Assistant Post Officer, Amritsar, who earlier lodged FIR No.350 of 1983, lodged another FIR No. 236 of 1986, but in this case also, the petitioner was acquitted, this time by the trial court itself on 23.05.1994. The petitioner claims to have, thereafter, submitted a first representation dated 19.09.1994, seeking reinstatement on the basis that no departmental proceedings had ever been held against him. This representation dated 19.09.1994 was followed with a reminder dated 03.04.1995, at which stage, he received information that the case of the petitioner was under consideration, the result of which would be intimated after receipt of information from the Circle Office. Further reminder elicited no response, including a legal notice. A request to inspect records so as to file appropriate petition in the Court also met the same fate and thus, Original Application bearing O. A. No. 747 -PB -1996 was filed seeking reinstatement with consequential benefits. In the written statement filed by the respondents, it was disclosed to the petitioner that he had been removed from service vide memo dated 11.02.1988, consequent to his conviction in the criminal case, which order had not been assailed. During the period the petitioner was out of service, the post, on which the petitioner was working, was abolished by way of down -gradation vide memo dated 25.03.1985. This was so as the order of removal dated 11.02.1988 had been made effective from the date of conviction i.e. 24.12.1984. It was also stated that the respondents were trying to look for a post of ED in Amritsar Division and as and when the post becomes available in the Amritsar Division, the petitioner would be taken back in service.
(3.) THE aforesaid OA was disposed of by order dated 19.03.1997 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, recording the statement of learned counsel for the respondents that the adjustment of the petitioner would take place within six months. On this statement being made, learned counsel for the petitioner stated (as recorded in the order) that the petitioner would be satisfied with this relief, in addition to the request for protection of pay as revised from time to time. The respondents were directed to take this into consideration and pay the petitioner emoluments, in accordance with rules.;