- (1.) The petitioner was working as Booking Clerk in Booking Office of R.S.R.T.C. at Kherliganj. A criminal case was registered against him for misappropriation of a sum of 4184.50, which he had acquired by sale of tickets between 1.2.84 to 6.2.84. The petitioner was challaned under Section 409 IPC. The Trial Court convicted him for offence under Sec. 409 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and to undergo one year's simple imprisonment in case of failure to pay the fine. In appeal the sentence of fine was reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to 1,000/- and the alternative sentence from one year to six months. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the High Court. In S. B. Criminal Revision No. 11/91 (decided on 27.1.91) this Court took notice of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner was not assailing the judgment of the Courts below on merits. The Court however observed that the petitioner is said to have used the Corporation's money by incurring expenses in his ailment and in his daughter's marriage when his arrears became outstanding with the Corporation. This he did on account of alleged poverty. The money was redeposited with the Corporation during the trial. The Court also took notice of the report of Probation and Social Welfare Officer wherein it was stated that there was nothing adverse on the record to show that the petitioner had repeated his offence and the petitioner is not a person with shady past. On that premise, a learned Single Judge of this Court granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner.
(2.) At the time of initiation of criminal proceedings the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 27-12-84 of the Divisional Manager of the R.S.R.T.C, Bharatpur. He was also served with charge sheet for departmental enquiry but no enquiry has in fact been held against him. He continued under suspension even when he had been convicted and his appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. After the order of the High Court, the petitioner made an application (Annexure-3) before the Divisional Manager, R.S.R.T.C, Bharatpur for revokation of the order of suspension and for payment of full salary. He repeated this request by representations, Annexure 4 and Annexure-5. He made another representation to the Direct (Traffic) for revokation of the order of suspension. Then he served a notice for demand of justice dated 3-7-91 though his counsel. However, despite of service of the notice no action has been taken by the Repondent Corporation for revokation of the suspension order.
(3.) The petitioner's case is that his suspension was founded on the allegation which constituted part of his prosecution in the criminal case. Once the High Court has extended the benefit the Probation of Offenders Act, there was no justification for his continued suspension. As far as the deparmental enquiry is concerned, no enquiry has effectively been held for the last eight years.;