Dismissal due to criminal conviction does not warrant entitlement to back wages upon acquittal if conviction initiated dismissal.

ORDER :

H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD, J.

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-M, rejecting the request of the petitioner for payment of financial benefits during the dismissal period since he has not served in the above period.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, he was appointed as a Community Organizer, on 07.01.2000, on a temporary basis. Thereafter, his service has been regularized by order dated 28.10.2005. On 19.10.1998, on the complaint, an FIR has been registered in Crime No.271/1998 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. The Sessions case has been registered in S.C.No.53/1999. The Sessions Court, by judgment dated 22.11.2016 (Annexure-A), convicted the petitioner for the offences mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the petitioner filed a criminal appeal before this Court in Crl.A.No.2089/2016. This Court, by order dated 03.07.2017 (Annexure-B), suspended the sentence. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed an order on 09.10.2017 by exercising the power under Rule 8 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, CCA Rules’), dismissing the petitioner from the service. This Court by judgment dated 30.01.2024 (Annexure-G) allowed Crl.A.No.2089/2016 and acquitted the petitioner from the criminal case. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.02.2024. By order dated 25.06.2024 (Annexure- H), the petitioner has been re-instated into the service to the post of Community Organizer. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 09.09.2024 (Annexure-K), seeking payment of salary for the period from 22.11.2016 to 25.06.2024. The same has been rejected by the impugned endorsement dated 16.05.2025 vide Annexure-M on the ground that the said period was treated as dies-non or non-duty. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions:

(i) Firstly, immediately after the conviction order passed by the Sessions Court, the petitioner filed an appeal before this Court in Crl.A.No.2089/2016. In the appeal, this Court, by order dated 03.07.2017 suspended the sentence imposed against the petitioner. Immediately, the petitioner submitted a representation on 13.07.2017 requesting the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to work. The respondents have not allowed the petitioner to continue the work. Instead of that, he has been dismissed from the service. Therefore, he is entitled for the salary from 22.11.2016 to 25.06.2024.

(ii) Secondly, even in the dismissal order dated 09.10.2017 (Annexure-F), it is specifically stated that, as per the Circular of the Government dated 26.06.1996, in case, the petitioner is acquitted in the criminal case, he is entitled for monetary benefits during the dismissal period. But, contrary to the said Circular, the impugned order has been passed.

(iii) Thirdly, immediately after the suspension of sentence passed by this Court, the petitioner was ready to work, but the respondent – Authority has not allowed him to work. Instead of that, he has been dismissed from the service. Because of the fault of the respondents, the petitioner cannot be punished. Hence, he sought to allow the writ petition.

4. Per contra, the learned AGA appearing for the respondents raised the following contentions:

(i) Firstly, the petitioner was convicted in the criminal case which was registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 r/w. 34 of IPC. The petitioner has been