S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays that having been acquitted from a criminal case and reinstated in the services of the respondent, he should be paid the back wages from the period of his suspension/dismissal dated 27th September, 2010, to the date of his reinstatement dated 3rd May, 2012. The communication from the respondent refusing to grant this relief dated 19th October, 2012, be declared as vitiated by arbitrariness and discrimination so also violative of the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts necessary for appreciating the argument of Mr. Mankapure appearing for the petitioner is that the respondent, though registered as a company under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, is entirely controlled by the State of Maharashtra. It deals with the business of distribution of electricity in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner who is an employee of the respondent was, at the relevant time, working as a Junior Engineer at Sangli. One complaint was lodged on 20th May, 2009, with the Anti Corruption Bureau. The allegation is that the petitioner demanded a bribe for granting a new electricity connection. That is how CR No. 30 of 2009 was registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Vishrambag Police Station, Sangli. Thereafter on completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Sangli. The offences with which the petitioner was charged were punishable under sections 7, 13, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter, the matter went to trial and the petitioner relies upon the order of acquittal recorded on 3rd December, 2011.

3. In the light of the fact that the petitioner was proceeded against on the charges of bribery and corruption, he came to be dismissed from service on 27th September, 2010. However, on his acquittal he made a representation dated 1st March, 2012, for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. On 21st April, 2012, the petitioner was reinstated in service with consequential benefit of continuity of service. His seniority was also protected, but as far as the grant of wages from the date of dismissal dated 27th September, 2010 to 3rd May, 2012, the respondent, by the impugned communication, rejected that request. The respondent, relying upon the MSEDCL Employees' Service Regulations, 2005, and particularly in the light of Regulation 10-A inserted vide Circular dated 24th November, 1992, rejected this request. It is this communication, copy which is at page 33 of the paper book, which is impugned in this writ petition.

4. During the course of arguments, reliance is placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court, in the case of Vijay Bhauraoji Amale v. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited, Writ Petition No. 29 of 2009, delivered by the Nagpur Bench on 17th March, 2009.

5. On the other hand, Ms. Baxi would submit that the attention of the Division Bench was not invited to the above specific Regulation and the Circular. She would submit that this judgment is rendered in complete ignorance of such Regulation and the Circular. She would submit that even otherwise this case is not identical and on par with that of the petitioner before the Division Bench. The Division Bench was essentially considering the issue of delay in the action of reinstatement. When reinstatement was granted, the back wages were denied. The argument was that the principle of 'No work no pay' would have no application in this case. However, the attention of the Division Bench was not invited to the settled legal principles and that Regulation 10-A has been inserted in the Regulations so also there is a important clarification by the Circular itself. Ms. Baxi would submit that the law does not bar holding of a Departmental Enquiry even when the criminal case is pending or on its conclusion/disposal, then, all the more such r