The acquittal in a criminal case, not being an honourable acquittal, does not automatically entitle the petitioner to reinstatement. The employer's concern regarding the integrity, honesty, and trustworthiness of the employee cannot be ignored based solely on the benefit of doubt accorded in a criminal case.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. - The present petition has been filed with the following prayers:

'In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to grant the following relief(s):-

a) to issue appropriate writ and or directions in the nature of certiorari/ mandamus thereby set aside and quash the Petitioner's dismissal from service Order No.TFD/HO/VIG/90/03/Vol.II/1610/140 dated 19.03.2013 as well as the Memorandum No.TFD/HONIG/90/03/Vol.II/1590/1889 dated 26.02.2013 issued by the Respondents;

b) to issue appropriate writ and or directions in the nature of mandamus thereby direct the Respondents to re-instate/ re employ the Petitioner with all consequential benefits and forthwith pay the amount due & payable to the Petitioner as per rules;

c) to issue appropriate writ and or directions in the nature of mandamus thereby direct the Respondents to grant and pay with retrospective effect all past & present service continuity benefits, arrears of salary and allowances as per rules calculated on the basis of applicable pay scales w.e.f. 17.10.2003 and as per 6& 7 Pay commission and promotion status w.e.f 1.01.2006 and 2016, respectively i.e. as Senior accountant on basic pay Rs.58600/- p.m. (revised basic pay ofRs.66,000/- p.m.) plus Da 17%, HR.a 16% and allowances as per Rules of TRIFED, Govt. of India;

d) to issue appropriate writ and or directions in the nature of mandamus thereby direct the Respondents to pay the aforesaid amounts and all dues along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date due till the date of payment;

e) Pass any other order or direction as deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.'

2. The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated March 19, 2013 of the respondent, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service under Rule 19(i) of the CCS (CCa) Rules, 1965 ('Rules of 1965', hereinafter) based upon his conviction under Section 7 and Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988 ('act of 1988', hereinafter) vide judgments dated November 22, 2012 and December 3, 2012 of the Special Court, Delhi. The petitioner had challenged the conviction orders before this Court, resulting in his acquittal and exoneration from all charges.

3. The petitioner herein was appointed as accounts Clerk by the respondent vide letter dated October 22, 1990. He was promoted to the post of accountant Grade-II and further promoted to the post of accountant Grade I.

4. Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, stated that the petitioner was falsely implicated in a criminal case under Section 7 and Section 15 of the act of 1988 registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI', for short), and the respondent vide letter dated October 20, 2003 suspended the petitioner w.e.f. October 17, 2003 and paid only subsistence allowance during the period from October 17, 2003 till February 2013. The petitioner was convicted in the criminal case by the Special Court, Delhi vide conviction and sentencing orders dated November 22, 2012 and December 3, 2012 respectively. Thereafter, a Memorandum dated February 26, 2013 was issued by the respondent, proposing the penalty of dismissal from service to the petitioner, and calling upon him to submit his reply to the same. He submitted the reply/representation on March 11, 2013 informing the respondent that he had assailed the conviction order in appeal, bearing Criminal appeal No. 106/2013 which was pending before this Court. Vide order dated January 22, 2013 this Court suspended the sentence and granted bail to the petitioner while requisitioning the Trial Court record. Therefore, the petitioner requested the respondent to keep the proposed punishment in abeyance. Ms. Maheshwari also stated that though there was no separate charge memo or inquiry / departmental proceedings conducted against the petitioner, the respondent suo moto proceeded against him by passing the final order dated March