Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 792 (RAJ)

Narendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

1998-07-24

MOHD.YAMIN

body1998
Honble YAMIN, J.–In the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.4.82, Anx. 16, by which his services were dispensed with w.e.f. 19.2.82 (forenoon) by the respondent No.2 as the petitioner was arrested by police in a criminal case. (2). The petitioner was appointed as Class-IV employee by the respondent No. 2 after being selected by the Selection Committee vide order dated 12.12.1980, Anx.1. His term of services was extended from time to time and he was fixed in the pay scale of 350-5-450 w.e.f. 1.9.81 and was also granted annual grade increments. (3). The petitioner was arrested in a criminal case and was put under suspension. He was in judicial custody and did not receive a copy of such an order. How- ever, it is evident from Anx.16 that the petitioners services were dispensed with vide order dated 30.4.82. In the said criminal case the petitioner was tried by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur and was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment vide judgment dated 14.12.82 in Sessions case No. 47/82. He preferred an appeal before the High Court and vide judgment dated 23.4.90 passed in DB Cr. Appeal No. 50/83 the petitioner was acquitted. Immediately after release, the petitioner submitted an application on 30.4.90, Anx.3, to the respondent No.2 to take him on duty which was forwarded by the respondent No.2 to the Director, Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur on 28.5.90 vide Anx.4. Later on reminders were issued by the respondent No.2 and a number of representations were made by the petitio- ner to reinstate him. Meanwhile Special Leave Petition against the acquittal was filed by the respondent State before the Honble Supreme Court but the same was dismissed vide order dated 3.2.92 (Anx.10). The petitioner has prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 30.4.82, Anx.16, be set aside and the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits including the interest on the amount which has accrued as his dues. (4). The respondents filed reply to the writ petition submitting that the petitioners appointment was purely temporary and did not create any right to the post in his favour. (4). The respondents filed reply to the writ petition submitting that the petitioners appointment was purely temporary and did not create any right to the post in his favour. The petitioner was arrested in a criminal case of murder and hence his temporary services were terminated and a copy of termination order was sent to the petitioner when he was in jail through the Superintendent of Central Jail, Jodhpur. The petitioner was acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt. It has been further submitted that the sanction of the Director, Medical and Health Department was to be obtained for reinstating the petitioner, therefore, the letters were written seeking direction from him. Since the petitioner was purely temporary employee and his services were terminated on account of his arrest in a criminal case, the petitioner did not acquire any right to the post. Therefore, the termination of his services was cent percent justified. (5). I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length and have also gone through the record. (6). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was acquitted by the appellate court i.e. the High Court and the Special Leave Petition of the State was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court and it is settled law that the dismissal or removal of an employee by the employer on the ground that the employee has been convicted by the trial Court, is always subject to the decision of appeal and if in the appeal the conviction is set aside, the employee has to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. He cited SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1389/91, Laxmi Narayan vs. State, decided on 19.4.94 in which the facts were similar because Laxmi Narayan was also convicted by the Sessions Judge, acquitted by the High Court and Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court. It was further submitted that the petitioner and Laxmi Narayan were jointly tried by the Sessions Judge and were acquitted by the same judgment of the High Court against which a Special Leave petition was filed by the State which was also dismissed. So when it is a settled position of law that in case of acquittal by High Court Laxmi Narayan was ordered to be reinstated, the petitioner should be reinstated. He also cited Satya Dev Sharma vs. State of Raj. & Ors. So when it is a settled position of law that in case of acquittal by High Court Laxmi Narayan was ordered to be reinstated, the petitioner should be reinstated. He also cited Satya Dev Sharma vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (1), in which it has been held that after acquittal by the appellate Court no penalty can be imposed on a government servant and the petitioner is to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits as if termination order has never been passed. (7). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. He cited Prem Ratan Swarankar vs. The Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Fed. Ltd. (2). and Sengara Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Punjab & Ors. (3). as well as Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. vs. Const. Dharampal & Ors. (4). (8). Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that so far as reinstatement was concerned, it could be allowed as the settled law as stands today is such that the petitioner is to be reinstated. But he submitted that in view of Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore vs. Superintendent Engineer, Gujrat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar, (Gujrat) and another (5), the petitioner was not entitled to back wages because the petitioner was disabled from rendering service on account of his conviction and not on account of any disciplinary action taken by the employer which was unsustainable in law. He submitted that in case the petitioner is reinstated, he may not be granted back wages. (9). Then learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was falsely involved in the case and ultimately he was acquitted, therefore, he was entitled for reinstatement with full back wages in view of citation Satya Dev Sharma (supra) and full bench judgment of this Court in Union of India vs. Ramswaroop (6)., State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Memboob Khan (7) and State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Krishna Biharilal Saxena (8), decided by common judgment on 4.3.1987. Needless to say that in all these cases the point of non payment of back wages was never raised by the State. All these citations are prior in time to Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakores case (supra). vs. Memboob Khan (7) and State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Krishna Biharilal Saxena (8), decided by common judgment on 4.3.1987. Needless to say that in all these cases the point of non payment of back wages was never raised by the State. All these citations are prior in time to Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakores case (supra). The latest view is that such a person is not entitled to back wages since he was disabled from rendering service on account of his conviction and not on account of any disciplinary action taken by employer which was unsustainable in law. As such, I am of the view that in view of this citation of the Honble Supreme Court the petitioner should not be paid back wages. (10). Then very peculiar condition arises in this case. After acquittal, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent No.2 on 30.4.90 that he may be reinstated. He also enclosed a copy of the judgment of High Court dated 23.4.90 by which he was acquitted. The respondent No.2 forwarded the same to the Director, Medical and Health Services vide his letter No. E- 1/MGH/90 dated 28.5.90. Instead of reinstating the petitioner the Director, Medical and Health Services replied vide Anx.7 (letter No. E-12/M/Loose/90/1394) dated 26.12.90 that the petitio- ner may not be granted any relief till further order. Perhaps the reason was that the Special Leave Petition was filed in Supreme Court. Ultimately the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 3.2.90 vide Supreme Court Judgment Anx.10 on record. Then the Director or the respondent No.2 should have reinstated the petitioner as the representation of the petitioner was already pending since 30.4.90 with the res- pondents. No action was taken, and now the respondents are saying that the petitioner should not be allowed full back wages. Needless to say that the petitioner should not suffer on account of inaction of the respondents and should get back wages right from the date he submitted his representation after acquittal on 30.4.90. (11). Therefore keeping all the facts in view, I allow this writ petition and direct that the petitioner shall stand reinstated with effect from the date he submitted application i.e. 30.4.1990. He will be entitled for back wages from the date of this application i.e. 30.4.1990 only. So far as period from 19.2.82 to 29.4.90 is concerned, he will not get any wages. He will be entitled for back wages from the date of this application i.e. 30.4.1990 only. So far as period from 19.2.82 to 29.4.90 is concerned, he will not get any wages. However, this period will not be treated as a break in service. The petitioner will get cost of writ petition which is quantified as Rs. 1,000/-.