Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The respondents have filed the Counter Affidavit denying the allegations made by the applicant stating that Late Ram Autar was placed under suspension as he was under Police and Judicial custody from 05.03.1995 to 07.03.1995 due to his involvement in a criminal case under Section 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The criminal case pending against him was abated due to his death on 12.01.2003. The respondents are justified in passing the impugned orders as Ram Autar was not entitled for the dues during the period of suspension. The Disciplinary Authority has rightly concluded that Ram Autar was not under suspension at the time of his death or conclusion of the court proceeding. It will not be justified to treat the period of police custody/suspension as a period spent on duty. Accordingly, the period of suspension w.e.f. 05.03.1995 to 30.04.1997 was ordered to be regularised as non-duty period under the provisions of Government of Indias Orders (3) below F.R.-54B. The applicant has got no case and the O.A. deserves to be dismissed.

{i} Whether Ram Autar was acquitted under the criminal case by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur under Section 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act?

{ii} Whether the respondents are wrongly interpreting the provisions of Government of Indias Orders (3) below F.R.-54B and thereby denying the dues to applicant?

7. As regards the first issue, it is apparent from the record that the criminal case S.T. No. 1204 of 2003 State Vs. Raju and others was pending against Ram Autar and his family members under Section 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act at P.S. Kotwali, District Shahjahanpur and S.T. No. 1448 of 2003 was pending against the present applicant- Smt. Shashi Bala and others under the aforesaid sections. A copy of the Judgment, passed in the aforesaid session trial has been filed by the applicant, which is annexure A-4 on record. Perusal of it shows that Ram Autar died during the pendency of the sessions trial before framing of charges by the Court, as admittedly, he died on 12.01.2003 and charges were framed against remaining accused persons on 08.09.2003 and 04.11.2003 respectively. The case pending against Ram Autar abated on account of his death before framing of the charges. According to the applicant, Ram Autar was also acquitted by the Sessions Court along with other accused persons but, the record shows otherwise as there is no mention of Ram Autar in the operative portion of the Order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The purpose of aforesaid omission is only to show that Ram Autar was not acquitted by the Court rather his case had abated. Thus, the contention of the applicant that Ram Autar was acquitted by Trial Court is not correct.