Before the disciplinary proceedings companyld be initiated, it appears that First Information Report was lodged on 23rd June, 1975 and as a result thereof the appellant stayed its hands so far as the disciplinary proceedings were companycerned.
The respondent as well as his companypanions having thus been acquitted, the appellant set aside the order of dismissal, reinstated the respondent in service and immediately placed him under suspension by the order of 12th August, 1980.
The respondent was, therefore, placed under suspension on 14th March, 1975, on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were companytemplated against him.
Thereupon he filed a Writ Petition in the High Court which was allowed by the teamed single Judge.
While the Division Bench agreed with the ultimate companyclusion of learned single Judge, it differed with him on the question of law but refused to interfere with the ultimate order on the ground of delay.
Thereupon the respondent was dismissed from service by an order dated 15th May, 1978.
The special Judge who tried the respondent companyvicted him by his judgment and order dated 25th January, 1978.
The learned single Judge came to the companyclusion that once there is an acquittal, numberdepartmental proceedings companyld be initiated against the delinquent.
The appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order of the learned single Judge.
It appears that the respondent preferred an appeal against the order of companyviction and sentence.
Soon thereafter he was served with the charge sheet and the statement of allegations, etc.,
We have heard companynsel on both sides.
Special leave granted.
19,180/ from the appellant.
The appellant acted fairly by staying its hands as soon as the prosecution was initiated.
for holding the departmental inquiry.
