IMPORTANT POINT
Subsequent acquittal of a government servant does not retroactively erase the legal consequences of prior conviction, affecting entitlement to back-wages.

ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Twin questions that emanate for consideration in this writ petition are,

1. Whether Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules would be applicable to the Government servant who has been reinstated on acquittal from the criminal charges? and

2. Whether he would be entitled for full back-wages from the date of conviction till the date of reinstatement on acquittal?

2. The aforesaid questions would arise in the following factual backdrop: -

3. The petitioner being Junior Engineer working in the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, was subjected to charge-sheet and ultimately, he was convicted by the Special Judge in Special Criminal Case No.11/2002 on 20-2-2004 for offences under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and on appeal being preferred by the petitioner herein, he was acquitted by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.206/2004 on 9-4-2012 and he was reinstated in service on 24-5-2012 by the order of the respondent herein i.e. the CSPDCL, and he was given all the service benefits except back-wages holding that from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement / joining, he will not be entitled for back-wages and it has been held to be the extraordinary leave without pay and allowances by order dated 8-4-2013.

4. Feeling aggrieved against refusal to grant back-wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition stating inter alia that though he has been reinstated, but refusal to grant back-wages is arbitrary and unjustified and he is entitled for back-wages also under Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules. Thus, a prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give the petitioner full salary from the date of termination till his reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

5. The respondents have filed return stating inter alia that the petitioner’s writ petition questioning the order of termination has been withdrawn and Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules would be applicable to a case where a Government servant is placed under suspension and is reinstated in service on revocation of the said suspension. It has further been stated that since the petitioner was not under suspension for the period of his absence and he was dismissed from service on receipt of the judgment of his conviction and order of his sentence, the period between his dismissal and reinstatement on acquittal was therefore not spent under suspension by any stretch of imagination and therefore he is not entitled to claim any benefit under the said Fundamental Rule. It has also been stated that since the petitioner has not worked on the post from the date of conviction till the date of reinstatement, he has rightly been denied back-wages.

6. Mrs. Renu Kochar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that though the petitioner has been reinstated, but back-wages from the date of conviction till the date of reinstatement have not been granted which he is entitled by virtue of Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

7. Ms. Veena Nair, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, would submit that Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules would apparently be not applicable in case of the petitioner, as the petitioner was not placed under suspension and not reinstated in service on revocation of said suspension and he was not under suspension for the period of his absence, rather he was dismissed from service pursuant to his conviction in criminal case by the jurisdictional criminal court, therefore, the said Fundamental Rule would not be applicable to him and he would not be entitled for back-wages. In light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himma