Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) FACTS of the case are that the petitioner (now deceased) submitted in the writ petition that he was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the year 1965 on a fixed pay basis of Rs. 90/ - per month. Thereafter, he was given regular appointed in the pay scale of Rs 90 -220 along with dearness allowance and other allowances vide order dated 19.6.1996 copy of which is placed on record as Annex. 1. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Accountant vide order dated 21.6.1968 (Annex. 2). The petitioner was suspended on 26.11.1968 and a memo was issued to the petitioner on 3.6.1969 alleging certain embezzlement of Rs. 4,784.75. The petitioner submitted reply to the memo on 4.1.1969. Thereafter, no enquiry was held in this matter but an FIR was lodged against the petitioner at Police Station Suraj Pole, Udaipur on 5.3.1970 under Sections 409, 407 & 471 of the IPC. The petitioner alleged that he kept on going to the bank but he was asked to go away and he was threatened with dire consequences in case he reports on duty. The petitioner ultimately acquitted by the criminal court by order dated 28.11.1992. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that leave to appeal against the above acquittal order was dismissed on 1.11.1999 (S.B. Criminal Misc. Special Leave to Appeal No. 264/1993). Thereafter, the petitioner again submitted joining letter to respondent No. 2 to permit him to join the duties and also submitted a certified copy of the judgment delivered by the Trial Court in criminal case, but petitioner was not permitted to join the duty.
(3.) IT is stated that though petitioner was suspended but no departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. Neither he was punished nor his services were terminated nor he was dismissed from service at any time by the respondent - Bank. Since, after acquittal the petitioner was not taken back in service and the petitioner was not paid the suspension allowances, therefore, petitioner served a notice for demand of justice through his counsel on 15.3.1993 (Annex. 5). Even after notice, the petitioner was not reinstated nor he was paid suspension allowances. The petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 128 of the Act of 1965 before the Additional Registrar (Appeals), Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur against the action of the respondent for not permitting him to join the duties with a relief for revoke the suspension and grant of arrears of salary including the subsistence allowance and other consequential benefits. The revision petition was registered as No. 7/1994 and finally the revision petition was dismissed by order dated 17.3.1999. It is stated that the revision petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted his joining after his suspension on 26.3.1968. According to the petitioner, the action of the respondent is absolutely illegal and high handed and the order passed in the revision petition is absolutely illegal. learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court out of which relevant and which covers the matters, are the judgment delivered in the cases of Anwarun Nisha Khatoon v. : (2002)IIILLJ844SC and Capt. M. Paulanthony v. : (1999)ILLJ1094SC .;