ORDER :

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 01.08.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (henceforth referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in Application No.4295/2016 by which, it rejected the claim of the petitioner for back wages from 28.09.2012 (date of termination) till 08.10.2013 when the petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charges by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.2746/2011.

2. When the petitioner was working as Assistant Director of Horticulture, Yelburga, he was charge sheeted in Spl Case (P.C) 5/2007 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Koppal for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was convicted for the offences in terms of the judgment dated 08.07.2011. Since the petitioner was convicted, the respondent No.1 passed an order dated 28.09.2012 dismissing the petitioner under Rule 8 (viii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal before the Tribunal in Application No.334/2013. In the meanwhile, he had challenged his conviction before this Court in Crl.A.No.2746/2011. This Court, in terms of the judgment dated 08.10.2013 allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and acquitted the petitioner of all charges. Therefore, the Tribunal taking into account the acquittal of the petitioner, allowed the application and quashed the order dated 28.09.2012 dismissing the petitioner. The Tribunal directed the State Government to reinstate the petitioner without consequential benefits.

3. Following the above, the petitioner submitted representations on 20.12.2013, 21.07.2014 and 13.01.2015 requesting the State Government to reinstate him into service and grant all consequential benefits. After a long lull, the State Government passed an order dated 29.06.2015 reinstating the petitioner into service and thereafter, posted the petitioner as Assistant Director of Horticulture, Davanagere. The State Government which was obligated to implement the order of the Tribunal in letter and spirit, passed an order dated 01.09.2015 and held that the petitioner is entitled to 50% salary and dearness allowance instead of the full back wages.

4. The petitioner therefore challenged the order dated 01.09.2015 before the Tribunal in Application No.4295/2016. The Tribunal held that the petitioner is entitled to the back wages till 28.09.2012 when he was dismissed from service. However, for the period 28.09.2012 to 08.10.2013 when the petitioner was acquitted in Crl.A.2746/2011, the Tribunal held that the petitioner is not entitled to the back wages. It also held that the petitioner is entitled to 50% back wages from 20.12.2013 till his actual reinstatement. It is this order of Tribunal which is challenged.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to our notice Rule 99 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, which are extracted below:

“99(1) When a Government servant who has been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired, is reinstated as a result of appeal or review or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement or superannuation while under suspension or not the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order.-

(a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of his absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be; and

(b) Whether or not said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.

(2) Where the authority competent to order reinstatement, is of opinion that the Government servant who had been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired has been fully exonerated the Government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (6), be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such