Valmiki J Mehta, J.@mdashThe relief claimed in this writ petition is the challenge to the memorandum/show-cause notice dated 21.9.1988, any
enquiry proceedings based thereupon and any orders passed by the Departmental Authority thereon. Respondent no. 2/employer has filed
counter-affidavit and it is stated that proceedings pursuant to the memorandum/show-cause notice dated 21.9.1988 have been dropped.
Respondent no. 2/employer however relies upon a subsequent order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 18.12.1990 which has held that the
petitioner deserted from services of the corporation/NPCC w.e.f. 7.3.1990. Respondents have said that after serving many notices since petitioner
failed to appear in the second enquiry proceedings newspaper advertisement was issued and thereafter since petitioner did not appear, the order
dated 18.12.1990 was passed. I however need not comment one way or the other today on the validity of the order dated 18.12.1990 inasmuch
as this order is not in challenge before me in this writ petition.
2. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by observing that there is no need for the petitioner to challenge the suspension order dated
9.9.1988, show-cause notice dated 21.1.1988 and subsequent enquiry proceedings because those proceedings including the suspension order and
the show cause notice have been dropped by the respondent no. 2. Once the suspension order and the subsequent enquiry proceedings are
dropped, petitioner will be deemed to be in service till 7.3.1990 and the respondent no. 2 is bound to give all service benefits to the petitioner till
7.3.1990.
3. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that petitioner will get all service benefits as if he continued to be in
service till 7.3.1990. Petitioner claims not to have been paid salary/monetary benefits from 1.6.1988 to 7.3.1990. The amount due to the petitioner
in accordance with law from 1.6.1988 to 7.3.1990 be now paid to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today alongwith the interest at
9% per annum simple from 1.6.1988 till payment. It is further clarified that petitioner is given liberty, of course in accordance with law, to challenge
order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 18.12.1990, and which is not the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. Parties are left to
bear their own costs.
