TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA,J. - (1.) The petitioner, who was serving on the post of Upper Division Clerk with the respondent-Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, was placed under suspension vide order dated 2.9.2002, but with effect from 28.8.2002 on account of involvement in a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). Departmental proceedings were also initiated in terms of issuing a charge sheet dated 9.12.2002 on the specific article of charge that the petitioner was caught red-handed and arrested by police authorities on 28.8.2002 while accepting illegal gratification of L 1,500/- from a consumer, namely, Shri Dharambir. He was re-instated on 16.1.2003 pending the outcome of the departmental proceedings as also criminal prosecution. Petitioner was convicted under Section 7 read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Act vide judgment dated 10.11.2004 passed by the Special Judge, Faridabad and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of L 3,000/-. Based upon such conviction, petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 25.5.2005.
(2.) An appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction was allowed by this Court in the light of judgment dated 17.7.2013 at Annexure P2 in Criminal Appeal No.2284-SB of 2004. In pursuance of the judgment of acquittal dated 17.7.2013, respondent-Nigam issued orders date 17.1.2014 re-instating the petitioner back in service subject to outcome of the departmental proceedings. On 14.5.2014, vide Annexure P6, even the charge sheet dated 9.12.2002 served upon the petitioner was dropped.
(3.) Respondent-Nigam thereafter issued order dated 28.5.2014, Annexure P5, in terms of which the period of suspension i.e. 28.2.2002 to 16.1.2003 and the period of dismissal from service i.e. 25.5.2005 to 27.1.2014 was regularised and treated as duty period, but pay and allowances for such period were denied. The petitioner have represented and staked a claim for pay and allowances for the period of suspension as also the period spent out of service on account of dismissal, the same has been rejected vide order dated 8.1.2015, Annexure P11, re-iterating the decision contained in the earlier order dated 28.5.2014, Annexure P5.;