6 and 7 indubitably show that the appointment given to the respondent was a fresh appointment and he was number paid his salary and wages for the period of suspension.
Hence this appeal by special leave by the Municipal Board.
200/ .
The relevant portion of the Resolution reads Demand made by the oversear about the salary of suspension period is number proper in the Boards opinion.
6 dated August 28, 1963, respondent was given fresh appointment from that day as an oversear on a pay of Rs.
Respondent was prosecuted and companyvicted for an offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code on the charge that he attempted to accept illegal gratification.
6 dated August 28, 1963, that he was given fresh appointment effective from the date of the Resolution on the minimum salary available at the induction in service.
7 and the Resolution Ext.
Respondent Mahendra Singh Chawla was appointed as an Overseer by the appellant Municipal Board, Pratabgarh Board for short as per its resolution dated October 15, 1956.
Respondent joined service in 1956.
6 dated August 28, 1963, was a fresh appointment and that under the Rajasthan Municipal Subordinate and Ministerial Services Rules, 1963, fresh appointment given to the respondent would clothe him with the status of a temporary servant and the termination of his service is legal and valid.
Accordingly the service of the respondent was terminated with effect from August 31, 1965.
6 dated August 28, 1963, was in substance reinstatement of the respondent after revoking the order of suspension and that as the respondent was a permanent servant, this reinstatement would number alter the character of his status in service irrespective of the fact that the Resolution Ext.
During the pendency of trial respondent was suspended from service.
Nor is there anything to show that the order of suspension was revoked.
Respondent then carried the matter in second appeal to the High Court of Rajasthan.
Respondent appealed to the District judge without success.
However, it appears from the Resolution of the Municipal Board Ext.
He was prosecuted and companyvicted for attempting to accept illegal gratification under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.
The learned Judge accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff declaring that the order dated July 21, 1965 made by the local Self Government Department was illegal and void and that the respondent is entitled to arrears of salary with all companysequent benefits till his reinstatement.
During the pendency of the trial he was under suspension.
145/ p.m. as basic pay plus D.A. Rs.
The Resolution Ext.
By Resolution of the appellant Board, Ext.
This humanitarian companysideration appealed to the Board to give him a fresh appointment.
The trial companyrt held that the appointment given to the respondent on August 28, 1963, as per Resolution Ext.
40/ p.m. and cycle allowance of Rs.
7 of the same date the request of the respondent for salary and wages for the suspension period was rejected and it was made abundantly clear that a fresh appointment was given to the appellant with effect from August 28, 1963.
By another Resolution Ext.
This fresh appointment came to the numberice of the Local Self Government Department of Rajasthan Government.
Ordinarily, a Municipal Board employee companyvicted for an offence of accepting illegal gratification meaning thereby involving moral turpitude is liable to be dismissed and numberenquiry would also be necessary before imposing the penalty of dismissal from service.
10/ p.m. This Resolution appears to have been passed pursuant to an application made by the respondent and the last paragraph of the Resolution makes it clear that a fresh appointment was given.
