- (1.) The facts in brief are that the petitioner is serving as an Assistant Lineman (ALM) by appointment on 30.10.2012. A criminal case in FIR No.144 dated 24.02.2015 was lodged against the petitioner. His services were placed under suspension on 05.03.2015. The petitioner was arrested by the Police on 08.03.2015, after suspension, and was released on police bail on the same day on furnishing bail bonds and personal surety. The petitioner was reinstated in service on 07.07.2015. It transpires that not only was the petitioner arrested on 08.03.2015, but was again arrested on 14.05.2015 and released on bail. He has not informed the Department about his arrest and subsequent release. The petitioner was again suspended on 11.08.2015 by the Authorities for the reason that the petitioner submitted false documents for securing his order of reinstatement to service. The petitioner is facing criminal proceeding. The petitioner has approached this Court raising the following questions: (i) Whether the suspension order dated 05.03.2015 prior to the arrest of the petitioner i.e. 08.03.2015 was valid (ii) Whether the suspension order dated 11.08.2015 is valid (iii) Whether grave and manifest injustice has been caused to the petitioner at the hands of respondents
(2.) It is argued that an FIR has no evidentiary value and its legal sanctity is no more than a document on which the police investigation commences. It is admitted that the service rules provides for suspension of an employee as and when he is taken into custody by the police, but the law also provides for the reinstatement as and when the said employee is released on bail or otherwise. Hence, there was no ground for suspension of the petitioner three days prior to the actual arrest on 08.03.2015. The petitioner remained under suspension from 05.03.2016 to 06.07.2015, which period is without reasonable cause and the action is assailed as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the service rules. The offences for which the petitioner was charged were bailable in nature involving a case of demand of dowry in a matrimonial dispute with his wife.
(3.) The second suspension of the petitioner on 11.08.2015 was by an office order for submitting false documents for his reinstatement, as said before. The petitioner says that he never submitted any false documents for reinstatement in service. There was no need to rely upon false documents. He was rather entitled his reinstatement as a matter of right being on bail and physically available to discharge his duties. He has pleaded that he submitted no document for the purpose of reinstatement. Therefore, the issue of arrest of the petitioner on 08.03.2015 ceases to be material issue because he was already placed under suspension on that date. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed innocent unless he is convicted by the competent court of law.;