IMPORTANT POINT
Judgment of acquittal would not necessarily exonerate delinquent of charges levelled against him and he could be proceeded against a departmental proceeding.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW - Dismissal from service on conviction in criminal case - Acquittal of delinquent in criminal case by Appellate Court - Denial of back wages - Legality - Appellant working as Patwari was charge-sheeted for offence u/s 5(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act r/w 161 IPC in 1976 - He was placed under suspension - He was convicted by trial Court by judgment dt. 25-2-1985 - In terms of said conviction he was dismissed from service by order dt. 3-10-1987 - Appellant filed appeal against conviction and his appeal was allowed on 16-1-2001 and he stood acquitted - He reached superannuation age in 1998 - High Court in writ petition filed by appellant directed respondent to consider representation of appellant with regard to pension only - Appeal against order denying back wages benefit was dismissed by Division Bench - Appeal - Contention that appellant had not been in custody for alleged offence which prevented him from attending his duties and thus he could not be denied back wages - Judgment of acquittal itself would not have exonerated him of charges levelled against him - No hard and fast rule could be laid down in regard to grant of back wages - High Court refused to exercise discretionary jurisdiction and no reason to differ with the view - Not a fit case for interference.
       Held : It may be true that the reason for long pendency of the trial or the criminal appeal filed by him may not be attributed to his acts of omission and commission but the fact remains that the entire period between 13.7.1976 and the date when he reached his age of superannuation he did not work. He was placed under order of suspension validly from 1976 to 2.10.1987. Legality of the order of dismissal on the basis of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.2.1985 has also not been questioned. It is true that his services were dispensed with as he had been convicted in a criminal case involving grave misconduct. On his acquittal, he was to be reinstated in service. He has been directed to be paid his pensionary benefits. The entire period during which he remained under suspension, thus, would be considered for calculating his pensionary benefits. Continuity of his service has also not been denied to him. The only question which arises for consideration, as noticed hereinbefore, is as to whether in a situation of this nature back wages should have been granted to him.(Para 8)
       No hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to grant to back wages. Each case has to be determined on its own facts. A grave charge of criminal misconduct was alleged against him. He was also found guilty of the charges levelled against him by the Special Judge. The High Court while delivering its judgment dated 16.01.2001 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 1985 inter alia held that the prosecution has not been able to prove that any demand had been made by him.(Para 9)
       It is now a trite law that judgment of acquittal itself would not have exonerated him of the charges levelled against him. He could have been proceeded against in a departmental proceeding. [See Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore v. S. Mani and Others, (2005) 5 SCC 100 and Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Narender Singh, (2006) 4 SCC 265].(Para 10)
       Departmental proceedings, however, could not be held as on the date of passing of the judgment of acquittal, he had already reached his age of superannuation. The learned counsel may be right that the decisions of this Court referred to hereinbefore involved the respective appellants therein on charge of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but, as noticed, it has also been laid down that each case has to be considered on its own facts. The High Court refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction having regard to the aforementioned decision of this Court in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore (supra). We do not see any reason to take a different view. Grant of back wages, it is well settled, is not automatic. Even in cases where principles of natural justice have been held to have not been complied with, while issuing a direction of reinstatement, this Court had directed placing of the delinquent employee under suspension.(Para 11)
       We, therefore, are of the opinion that it is not a fit case, having regard to the fact that the appellant has been paid the retiral benefits, where we should interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed.(Para 15)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. - Appellant was a Patwari working at village Minda in the year 1976. On an allegation that he had sought illegal gratification, on or about 13.7.1976, a complaint was lodged in the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption, Jaipur (Rural) that the appellant had asked for illegal gratification. A raiding party laid a trap on the said date and he was found to have accepted illegal gratification. Pursuant thereto he was prosecuted for alleged commission of an offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. He was placed under suspension. He was convicted under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code by reason of a judgment dated 25.02.1985 passed by the Special Judge (A.C.D.) in criminal case No. 17 of 1979. He was dismissed from service in terms of the said judgment of conviction by an order dated 3.10.1987.

2. The appellant preferred an appeal against the said judgment of conviction and sentence and by reason of a judgment and order dated 16.01.2001, the said appeal was allowed. The appellant, thus, stood acquitted.

3. In the meanwhile, i.e., in the year 1998, the appellant reached his age of superannuation. Having been acquitted in the criminal proceeding, he filed a writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan which was marked as SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3111 of 2002. By an order dated 19.02.2003, a learned Single Judge of the High Court directed that in the event the appellant files a representation before the competent officer with regard to pension, the same may be considered within a period of three months therefrom. An appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed by reason of the impugned order passed by the Division Bench.

4. Before we advert to the contentions raised by the appellant questioning the correctness or otherwise of the judgment of the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court denying him back wages, we may notice that pursuant to or in furtherance of the said judgment dated 19.02.2003, he filed a representation before the Collector and the said authority by an order dated 25.11.2004 directed:

"The first appointment of Sh. Vanshidhar was made on 22.10.60 in the Office of Tehsildar, Nagore and on 3.10.87, he was dismissed from his service. Accordingly, the service tenure of Sh. Vanshidhar comes to 26 years, 11 months and 13 days. This service tenure comes within the pensionable service category.

Therefore, while allowing the representation dated 6.8.04 submitted by Sh. Vanshidhar, Ex. Patwari, I think it proper to allow the pension benefit to him under the provisions of Rajasthan Pension Rule, 1996.

Therefore, in the light of aforesaid all facts and circumstances, the pensionary benefit of Sh. Vanshidhar, Ex. Patwari is hereby allowed and it is directed that in compliance of the Circular No. F 10/35/Vitta/Niyam 96/R.S.R. 2/03 dated 04.02.03 of the Finance Department the case shall be forwarded to the Finance Department for necessary action."

5. Mr. K.S. Bhati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that it being not a case where he had remained in custody for alleged commission of an office which prevented him from attending the duties, he could not have denied back wages. It was urged that the decision of this Court in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) and Another [(1996) 11 SCC 603] was wrongly applied by the High Court as the appellant therein was convicted for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore (supra) this Court opined:

"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 a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 1032

IMPORTANT POINTJudgment of acquittal would not necessarily exonerate delinquent of charges levelled against him and he could be proceeded against a departmental proceeding.

Cases Referred (8)

IMPORTANT POINT
Judgment of acquittal would not necessarily exonerate delinquent of charges levelled against him and he could be proceeded against a departmental proceeding.