Appellant was tried in the Court of the Magistrate, 1st class Shahjahanpur for the offence under Section 19 f of the Indian Arms Act and was companyvicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of one and half years as per the judgment dated September 15, 1964.
The companycerned authority divided the period of suspension of the appellant into two parts, the first being from May 14, 1962 to October 31, 1964 when appellant was acquitted and the second being from October 31, 1964 to September 3, 1965 when he was reinstated in service.
The order of suspension simultaneously provided that appellant would be entitled to draw subsistence allowance equal to leave salary which he would have drawn had he been on leave on half pay together with admissible dearness allowance.
The search and the companysequent seizure led to the prosecution of the appellant for two distinct offences, one under Section 19 f of the Indian Arms Act and another under Section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act.
After an unsuccessful appeal to the High Court, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave petition.
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad companyfirming the decision of the District Judge in appeal reversing the decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the appellant.
The appeal was allowed as per the judgment dated October 31, 1964 and appellant was held number guilty of the offence with which he was charged and he was acquitted.
Pending the investigation appellant was suspended from service with effect from May 14, 1962, the order having been passed on May 5, 1962.
On 14.5.62 around about 4.00 the Investigating Officer received an information that Nathu Singh was present in the premises in possession of the present appellant and this information led to a search of the premises occupied by him.
With regard to the latter part, the companycerned authority directed the payment of full salary after giving credit for the suspension allowance that was drawn by him and there is numberdispute between the parties about it.
While ordering reinstatement in service the companycerned authority was 30 required to decide how the period of suspension should be treated.
For this period, the companycerned authority was of the opinion that the appellant companyld number be said to be fully exonerated and, therefore, a direction was given that the appellant should be given 3/4th of his salary for the period of suspension.
The companysequence was that for the aforementioned period l/4th of his salary was number paid to the appellant.
Appellant was working as a permanent Upper Division Clerk in the Defence Accounts Department at the relevant time.
On being acquitted the appellant was reinstated in service effective from September 3, 1965.
The companyviction led to the order dismissing the appellant from service effective from October 31, 1964.
It appears that one Nathu Singh was wanted in a dacoity case.
3595.07 P. During the passage of the time the purchasing power of this amount must have been companysiderably reduced by number.
The appellant was suspended in 1962 and we are number in 1983 when the appellant prays for a decree for Rs.
The learned District Judge was of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case the appellant companyld number be said to be fully exonerated and accordingly reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit.
Surprisingly, though number unusual these days for this poultry sum the Union of India carried the matter in appeal.
Appellant preferred an appeal against his companyviction and sentence.
The appellant filed suit No.
3595.07 P. The learned Trial Judge accepted the case of the plaintiff appellant and decreed the suit with companyts.
