K PAOTHING Vs. CHAIRMAN L I C I BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is so directed against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 26.6.95, in Civil Rule No. 72 (K)/ 94 by virtue of which the learned Single Judge was pleased as to dismiss the Civil Rule Petition so preferred by the present appellant/ writ petitioner, Shri K. Paothing.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the said Civil Rule was that the present appellant, Shri K. Paothing, was serving as an Assistant Administrative Officer in Life Insurance Corporation of India, hereinafter referred to as LICI, in its Dimapur branch in the State of Nagaland and because of the appellant/writ petitioner being arrested on 26.12.90 in connection with Dimapur East Police Station Case No. 18(12)/90 which was in connection with a case so lodged under Section 21/22 of the NDPS Act, he was so suspended from the service in exercise of the powers under regulation 36 of the Life Insurance Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1960, hereinafter to be referred as the Regulations. The said suspension to him was with effect from 26.12.90 and during the period of his suspension, he was being paid the subsistence allowance.

(3.) The said Criminal case so lodged which was numbered as G.R. Case No. 753/ 90 was disposed of by the learned trial Court on 26.11.92, convicting one Shri Khetovi Sema, but as far as the writ petitioner was concerned, he was so acquitted being given the benefit of doubt. After passing of the said judgment by the learned trial Court in the said Criminal case in the background of his being acquitted being given the benefit of doubt, the LIC authorities revoked the suspension order on 21.5.93 and accordingly (he writ petitioner resumed his duties as Asstt. Administrative Officer on 4.6.93. The LIC authorities, it further transpires, treated the period from 26.12.90 to 8.2.91 in case of the writ petitioner to be his on Privileged Leve giving all the amenities with regard to the full payment of the salaries and allowances but he was not paid for the period from 9.2.91 to 3.6.93 which was so treated as Extra-ordinary leave and the aforesaid intimation to this effect was so communicated to the writ petitioner a copy of which is filed and marked as Exhibit 3. A representation petition was so filed by the writ petitioner before the LIC authorities on 13.8.93, for reviewing the previous decision so taken treating the period from 9.2.91 to 3.6.93 treating him to be on Extra-Ordinary Leave (EOL), but the said representation petition so filed for review was rejected and communicated to the writ petitioner on 22.3.94. It is after the rejection of the said representation petition that the Civil Rule was so filed attracting particularly the provisions of Rule 38 of the Regulations and claiming that since the writ petitioner was so acquitted, he was entitled for full pay and allowances particularly as per the provisions of Rule 38(a) of the said Regulations of the LIC. The learned Single Judge by assigning reasons, finding no merit in the said Civil Rule petition vide the impugned order dated 26.6.95, rejected the petition which has given rise to this writ appeal.