Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 3.6.1991 whereby, petitioner, when he was reinstated in service, was treated as suspended from the date of his removal.
(2.) Petitioner was Driver with the respondents- R.S.R.T.C. He was placed under suspension by the Assistant Mechanical Engineer (Pension) Sri Ganganagar vide order dated 12.12.1987 in contemplation of departmental enquiry. Petitioner was served with the charge-sheet on 23.2.1988 for causing an accident on 12.12.1987. Petitioner submitted reply to the aforesaid charge- sheet. Petitioner was later dismissed from service by order of the Divisional Mechanical Engineer Bikaner vide order dated 8.2.1989. Since a reference was pending before the Industrial Tribunal with regard to service conditions of the employees of the R.S.R.T.C., respondents moved an application before the Industrial Tribunal for approval of removal of the petitioner. Industrial Tribunal vide its order dated 4.4.1991 rejected the application filed by the respondents under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the "Act") and thus refused to approve his removal. Personal Officer R.S.R.T.C. wrote a letter to the Divisional Mechanical Engineer Bikaner on 6.5.1991 directing that petitioner be reinstated in service treating him under suspension as he was immediately prior to his dismissal. During the period of suspension, his headquarter was fixed at Bikaner and it was directed that he would receive the amount of subsistence allowance for the intervening period. Consequently, petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 3.6.1991 but he was treated under suspension. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
(3.) Shri Babu Lal Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that when petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of the departmental enquiry. After completion of enquiry when he was dismissed, the order of his suspension was merged into dismissal order. Once dismissal order is set aside, suspension order itself also stands obliterated and the same consequences follow from refusal to approve dismissal. Refusal to approve and for that matter, setting aside of the dismissal order by itself would not revive the suspension order. It was argued that criminal case was also registered against the petitioner for the very same incident under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the aforesaid offences vide judgment dated 26.8.1995. However appeal was filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, who vide its order dated 16.6.1998 set aside the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence and acquitted the petitioner of all the charges. Petitioner submitted representation to the Personal Officer as well as Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation requesting that order of his suspension be revoked and he should be paid all the arrears and benefits of pay fixation as per revised pay scale rules with annual grade increments for the intervening period. When nothing was done, he was forced to file the present writ petition.;