Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE challenge in the present writ petition the order dated 11.08.2006 (Annexure P -1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as "the Tribunal") constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The petitioner, while working in Intelligence Bureau under the Ministry of Home Affairs, was detained for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 465, 471 and 419 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code in FIRNo. 141 dated 16.11.1989. The petitioner was arrested in November, 1989. He was released on bail on 28.02.1990. On account of his arrest, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 28.11.1989 vide order Annexure P -1. Such order of suspension was revoked on 20.06.2001, Annexure P -5.
(2.) THE criminal case registered against the petitioner was withdrawn with the permission of the Court on 29.03.2001 with the following concluding para: Consequent upon my aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the permission for the withdrawal of the case should be granted because the parties have admitted/ compromised the matter and the accused have been facing trial for more than 11 years. In my opinion, the public interest will be served better, if the permission sought is granted. Accordingly, I allow the application and the accused are accordingly acquitted of the charges framed against them. Thereafter, a charge -sheet dated 22.03.2002 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 was issued to the petitioner. The statement of articles of charge was in respect of failure to maintain absolute integrity on account of his involvement in the aforesaid criminal case. The said charge -sheet was withdrawn on 10.03.2003.
(3.) ON 12.03.2003, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner pointing out that suspension of the petitioner from 20.11.1989 to 19.06.2001 cannot be construed as wholly unjustified and the said period was proposed to be treated as non duty for all purposes except pensionary benefits. However, the subsistence allowance already paid to the petitioner for the suspension period was not to be recovered. After considering the reply filed, an order has been passed on 6.5.2003 holding that suspension for the period from 20.11.1989 to 19.06.2001 cannot be construed as wholly unjustified and, as such, the entire suspension period was treated as non duty period for all purposes except pensionary benefits under the provision of Sub -rule (5) of Rule 54 -B of Fundamental Rules. However, the subsistence allowance already paid to the petitioner was not to be recovered. The said order, Annexure P -10, was affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority as well on 12.01.2005 (Annexure P -11).;