IMPORTANT POINT
Question of back wages would be considered only if services of an employee were terminated by way of disciplinary proceedings and action was found to be unsustainable in law and that employee was unlawfully prevented from discharging the duties.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-Petitioner, a junior clerk, dismissed from services on conviction for offences u/s 302/34 IPC-Conviction set aside by High Court-Order for rein statement by High Court but back wages were denied-Special Leave Petition for claim for back wages-Order of dismissal from services was because of petitioner s conduct of involving himself in crime-Question of back wages would have arisen only if respondents had taken action by way of disciplinary proceedings and action was found to be unsustainable in law and that he was unlawfully prevented from discharging duties-Petitioner was not entitled to back wages. (Para 3)

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The case involves an employee who was dismissed from service following a conviction under criminal law, specifically for an offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.
The employee's conviction was later set aside by a higher court, which ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service.
The primary issue was whether the employee was entitled to back wages after reinstatement.
The court clarified that back wages are generally considered only if the employee's dismissal was due to disciplinary proceedings found to be unlawful or unsustainable in law, and if the employee was unlawfully prevented from performing his duties.
In this case, the employee's dismissal was based on his involvement in a crime, which led to his conviction and incarceration, regardless of subsequent acquittal.
Since the employee's conduct involved criminal activity, and his service was terminated due to his conviction, he was not entitled to back wages.
The court emphasized that each case must be considered on its own facts, particularly regarding conduct and legal proceedings.
Ultimately, the special leave petition was dismissed, affirming that the employee was not entitled to back wages under these circumstances (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.

ORDER

Delay condoned.

2. This case does not warrant interference for the reason that, admittedly, the petitioner was charged for an offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC for his involvement in a crime committed on October 1, 1986. The Sessions Judge had convicted the petitioner under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. On that basis, the respondents had taken action to have him dismissed from service since he was working as a Junior Clerk in the respondent-Electricity Board. The petitioner challenged the validity of the dismissal order by way of a special civil application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Pending disposal, the Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated October 14, 1992 acquitted him of the offence. Consequently, while disposing of the writ petition, the learned single Judge directed the respondent to reinstate him into the service with continuity of the service, but denied back wages. The petitioner then filed Letters Patent Appeal No.319/93 which was dismissed by the impugned order dated August 26, 1993. Thus, this special leave petition.

3. The reinstatement of the petitioner into the service has already been ordered by the High Court. The only question is : whether he is entitled to back wages ? It was his conduct of involving himself in the crime that was taken into account for his not being in service of the respondent. Consequent upon his acquittal, he is entitled to reinstatement for the reason that his service was terminated on the basis of the conviction by operation of proviso to the statutory rules applicable to the situation. The question of back wages would be considered only if the respondents have taken action by way of disciplinary proceedings and the action was found to be unsustainable in law and he was unlawfully prevented from discharging the duties. In that context, his conduct becomes relevant. Each case requires to be considered in his own backdrops. In this case, since the petitioner had involved himself in a crime, though he was later acquitted, he had disabled himself from rendering the service on account of conviction and incarceration in jail. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to payment of back wages. The learned single Judge and the Division Bench have not committed any error of law warranting interference.

4. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

SLP dismissed.

*******

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 1761

IMPORTANT POINTQuestion of back wages would be considered only if services of an employee were terminated by way of disciplinary proceedings and action was found to be unsustainable in law and that employee was unlawfully prevented from discharging the duties.

IMPORTANT POINT
Question of back wages would be considered only if services of an employee were terminated by way of disciplinary proceedings and action was found to be unsustainable in law and that employee was unlawfully prevented from discharging the duties.