The mere pendency of the appeal against acquittal does not entitle the employer to continue the penalty of removal from service. The acquitted employee is entitled to backwages and continuity of service during the pendency of the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel Mr. Avishkar S. Shelke waives service for respondent no.1. At the joint request of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The short issue involved in the present petition is, whether an employer is justified in denying wages to the employee during pendency of appeal against his acquittal on the principle of ‘no work no pay’.

3. Petitioner was working as a Junior Technician with Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MSEDCL’). He got himself embroiled in criminal prosecution on the charges of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Under Regulation 90 of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Employees’ Service Regulations, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Service Regulations’) there is a provision for conduct of a summary enquiry. Such summary inquiry proceedings were initiated by issuing charge-sheet dated 20.09.2008. After receipt of Petitioner’s reply, the penalty of removal from service with effect from 22.07.2008 was imposed on him vide order dated 08.12.2008. His appeal against the order of removal was rejected by order dated 13.08.2009.

4. In the Special (ACB) Case No.2 of 2009 instituted against the petitioner in the Court of Special Judge at Omerga, he came to be acquitted by Judgment and order dated 11.10.2013. His acquittal was challenged by the State Government before this Court by filing Criminal Appeal No.799 of 2014. When the petitioner requested for his reinstatement based on his acquittal, the request was turned down vide communication dated 16.07.2014 on the pretext of pendency of criminal appeal against acquittal. Writ Petition No.7578 of 2014 was filed seeking reinstatement, but the same was withdrawn and disposed of by order dated 26.11.2015 with a liberty to resort to appropriate remedy.

5. It appears that the petitioner filed one more appeal challenging the penalty of removal from service. Since the appeal was not being decided, he filed Writ Petition No.4253 of 2016 and it came up for hearing on 06.10.2017. A statement was made on behalf of the petitioner that he would not claim back-wages till acquittal. This Court disposed of Writ Petition No.4253 of 2016 by order dated 06.10.2017 granting him liberty to file applications/representation under Regulation 106 of the Service Regulations for reinstatement with a further direction to the authority to decide the same.

6. The Chairman and Managing Director of MSEDCL rejected the petitioner’s application/representation by order dated 06.02.2018 inter alia holding that the petitioner was not acquitted on merits and that Criminal Appeal against the acquittal was pending. The appellate authority, therefore, rejected the request for reinstatement.

7. Criminal Appeal No.799 of 2014 was thereafter heard by this Court and the same was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 04.04.2019. After dismissal of the criminal appeal, the petitioner was ultimately reinstated in service by order dated 04.09.2019. However in respect of the period from 09.12.2018 till reinstatement, he was held to be not entitled to any financial benefits on the principle of ‘no work no pay’ in accordance with the Circular No.6573 dated 24.11.1992. The petitioner made representation dated 22.01.2020 against the said decision. By letter dated 31.01.2020 it was once again communicated that he would not be entitled to any financial benefits on the principle of ‘no work no pay’. The decision vide communication dated 31.01.2020 is impugned by the petitioner in the present petition.

8. The petitioner has prayed for the benefit of continuity and backwages in view of his reinstatement in service vide order dated 04.09.2019. During the course of his submissions, Mr. Syed, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner did attempt to impress upon us that the petitioner would be entitled to backwages from the date