RAMESHWAR DAYAL Vs. CHIEF AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, B.S.N.L.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Original Application is preferred by the applicant u/s. 19 of the AT Act with the following relief's: -

(2.) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents filed their reply and through reply, it was pointed out by the respondents that the impugned order dated 29.2.2012 does not suffer from any illegality since the vigilance clearance has been withheld by the vigilance cell of the respondents organization. Apart from this, it is also pointed out that as per the proviso to Sub -rule 5(e) of Rule 30 of B.S.N.L. C.D.A. Rules 2006, no such review of suspension shall be necessary in the case of deemed suspension, if the employee continuous to be under detention at the time of completion of ninety days of suspension and the 90 days period in such case will counted from the date the employee detained in custody released from detention or the date on which the fact of his release from the detention is intimated to his Appointing Authority whichever is later. It is also pointed out by the respondents Counsel that since the applicant superannuated before expiry of 90 days, as such, review of his suspension was not warranted. Not only this, the learned Counsel for respondents has also pointed out that vide order dated 21.8.2012, sanction was accorded for payment of leave, salary encashment equivalent to 286 days of unutilized earned leave at the credit of the applicant and earned leave encashment i.e. 286 days, 14 days custody period was withheld and would be decided after the judgment in the criminal case pending in the C.B.I. Court.

(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.