Entitlement to back wages for a government employee acquitted of corruption charges is determined based on the date of acquittal, as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State.

2. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following reliefs:

“That this is an application for issuance of appropriate writ, order or directions for quashing the Order passed by the Respondent No. 2 under Memo No. 1915 dated 15.06.2015 and also the Letter No. 2958 dated 25.08.2018 issued by the Respondent No. 3 by which the learned Respondent denied the back wages of the petitioner for the period from the date of dismissal on 16.09.2008 till the date of reinstatement i.e. on 06.01.2015 and further to allow his promotions, promotional benefits, full salary with increments etc. due to dismissal from service land further to allow any other consequential reliefs for which the petitioner found entitled.”

3. The petitioner, while being in service and holding the post of Deputy Registrar in the Co-operative Department under the State Government was caught in a trap case while accepting bribe of Rs. 5,000/- on 24.07.1992, by the Vigilance Department, for which Special Case No. 64 of 1992, arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 32 of 1992 was lodged against him. The petitioner was placed under suspension and departmental proceeding initiated. By judgment dated 20.12.1999, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 7 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 11 of 2000 before this Court and during the pendency, he was released on bail. On 11.08.2001, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked till the disposal of the appeal filed by him. By order dated 16.09.2008, the petitioner was dismissed from service on the ground of conviction in the criminal case. Later, by judgment dated 07.08.2012 in the appeal, the petitioner was acquitted. On 02.11.2012, he represented before the Principal Secretary of the Co-operative Department for reinstatement in service. The petitioner had also preferred C.W.J.C. No. 4883 of 2013 for quashing the order of dismissal. By order dated 10.11.2014, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated within four weeks and with further direction that representation for back wages be disposed off within the same period in accordance with law and the relevant rules. The petitioner, in terms of the order of the Court submitted his representation before the respondent no. 2 on 01.12.2014. By order dated 06.01.2015, he was reinstated and also joined on the same day. Subsequently, he superannuated from the department on 28.02.2015. On 05.05.2015, he submitted representation to respondent no. 2, seeking arrears of back wages and for not counting the period of dismissal as break in service. By order dated 15.06.2015, the respondent no. 2, rejected the claim of the petitioner for back wages. He again filed representation on 24.07.2015 on the ground that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied by the authorities in denying him back wages had been misinterpreted and, thus, for making such payment to him, which was once again rejected by order dated 25.08.2015.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though he has a good case on merits for claiming the entire back wages, but he is limiting his prayer to the back wages, at least from the date he was acquitted by the appellate Court (High Court) in the criminal case. Learned counsel submitted that he would also rely on the decis ion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Jaipal Singh reported as (2004) 1 SCC 121, on which the authorities had relied, though, they have misinterpreted the said order.

5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that since it had preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the date on which its appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, would technically be the date of acquittal.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court