' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner was serving as an Assistant in the Revenue office of the respondent Authority at Hafizabad. He alongwith another person was involved in a corruption case and was arrested. He was tried by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption but was ultimately acquitted.
Soon after his arrest, he was placed under suspension. After his acquittal, he was reinstated in service.
2. The department found that the petitioner's acquittal was not honourable. He was served with a show-cause notice and after taking into consideration the explanation offered by him the penalty of stoppage of annual increment for a period of two years without future effect was imposed upon him; further, it was directed that he should not be paid any salary beyond the suspension allowance and the period of suspension should be treated as leave without pay. He filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal which was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. It is to be noticed that at the trial before the Special Judge, the petitioner did not dispute that he was present at the time when the illegal gratification was paid to his colleague and that the tainted money was recovered from his person. His explanation was that after receiving the illegal gratification his colleague had passed on the money to him for safe custody. It would thus appear that he admitted to be an accessary after the fact. In the circumstances, the departmental authorities were justified in taking the view that his conduct was highly objectionable. The learned Tribunal had therefore good reason not to interfere with the order of the departmental authorities.
In the circumstances, we dismiss this petition.