IMPORTANT POINT
The court established the validity of the CPWD Policy in justifying the termination of employees involved in serious criminal cases and remaining incarcerated beyond 48 hours, and clarified the exclusion of principles of natural justice in exceptional circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. (Oral) - The present LPA arises out of a judgment dated 16.11.2022 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 7487/2005 titled `CPWD Vs. Presiding Officer & Ors.' (the "Impugned Judgement").

2. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant was appointed as a muster roll employee i.e., Muster Roll Assistant Wireman on 27.01.1983 by the Respondent. On 04.05.1989, a First Information Report bearing No. 82 of 1989 came to be registered against the Appellant in relation to an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") (the "FIR"). Thereafter, on 05.05.1989, the Appellant was allegedly illegally arrested by Delhi Police and subsequently, produced before the Magistrate on 12.05.1989. In May 1989, the Respondent learnt about the Appellant's arrest through a newspaper report which was confirmed vide a letter dated 31.05.1989 issued to the Respondent by Police Station ("PS") Inder Puri, Delhi.

3. In this context, on 21.06.1989 the Appellant's services were stated to have been terminated by the Respondent retrospectively with effect from 05.05.1989. On 10.08.1990, the Appellant was released on parole by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi and thereafter, vide a letter dated 29.08.1990, the Appellant informed the Respondent about inter alia his alleged illegal arrest by the Delhi Police; and his dire need for money. Accordingly, the Appellant requested the Respondent to release all arrears. On 26.02.1992, the Appellant was released on regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.

4. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to note that the Respondent vide a letter dated 27.05.1991 formulated a policy qua inter alia muster roll employees/casual labor embroiled in serious criminal cases, whereunder muster roll employees/casual labor could be terminated without notice on account of being embroiled in a serious criminal case and consequently remaining incarcerated beyond 48 (forty-eight) hours (the "Policy").

5. The Appellant, vide a letter dated 28.05.1992 issued through his legal counsel to the Respondent, sought reinstatement of his service with the Respondent. In furtherance of the same, the Appellant even visited the office(s) of the Respondent however, he was not reinstated by the Respondent.

6. On 26.07.1995, the Appellant was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. The Appellant vide a letter dated 11.08.1994 issued to the Respondent, reiterated his demand for reinstatement of his service with the Respondent under the Policy.

7. Accordingly, vide a letter dated 31.08.1994, the Executive Engineer, Central Public Works Department ("CPWD") requested the Superintendent Engineer, CPWD to inter alia regularize the services of the Appellant in accordance with law. Subsequently, additional letter(s) dated 08.09.1994; and 10.10.1994 were issued by the Appellant to the Respondent, seeking reinstatement of his service under the Policy. However, the Respondent did not reinstate the services of the Appellant.

8. Aggrieved, the Appellant sought recourse under the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (the "ID Act"). The relevant proceedings instituted by the Appellant before the Conciliation Officer ("CO") did not materialize due to the alleged non-cooperative nature of the Respondent. Thereafter, a reference was made by the appropriate government seeking the resolution of the dispute before the Ld. Central Government Industrial Tribunal (the "CGIT"). The CGIT vide an award dated 21.03.2002in Industrial Dispute ("ID") No. 101/1996 held (i) that the termination of services of the Appellant by the Respondent was illegal; (ii) directed the reinstatement of the Appellant with full back-wages with effect from 05.05.1989 (the "Award 1").

9. Aggrieved by the Award 1, the Respondent challenged the same before this Hon'ble Court by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 401 of 2003. This Court, vide an order