IMPORTANT POINT
An employee acquitted after suspension and reinstatement is entitled to back wages for the period of suspension and to seniority and consequential benefits, including promotion, at par with the last junior of his batch.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

1. The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated November 2, 2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi ('Tribunal', for short) whereby the Tribunal had dismissed OA No. 605/2016 filed by the petitioner herein.

2. At the outset, we note that the petitioner Mr. Vinod Kumar had expired on February 02, 2018 while on duty. The legal heirs of the deceased petitioner have been brought on record vide order dated May 29, 2018.

3. The petitioner, a Constable in Delhi Police, was arrested on November 18, 1996 for his involvement in a case bearing FIR No. 1132/1996 dated November 14, 1996, under Section 379 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC', for short). In connection with the said crime, he was placed under suspension w.e.f. November 18, 1996 vide order dated November 21, 1996. He was dismissed from service under Article 311 (2)(b) of the Constitution of India vide order dated December 12, 1996, and his suspension period from November 18, 1996 till the date of dismissal was treated as period not spent on duty. The petitioner challenged this dismissal order before the Tribunal in OA 685/2010. Pursuant to order dated December 24, 2010 of the Tribunal, the petitioner was reinstated in service, but deemed to be under suspension from the date of dismissal vide order dated February 15, 2011. It was also ordered that he is not entitled to any back wages and the intervening period from the date of issue of reinstatement order to the date of joining was treated as leave of kind due. A regular departmental inquiry was initiated and the petitioner was awarded punishment of forfeiture of five years. approved service permanently vide order dated June 4, 2012, and remained under suspension in view of the pendency of the criminal case against him. Though it was decided that the issue of his suspension period would be decided after the decision of the criminal case, he was reinstated in service vide order dated July 17, 2012.

4. In the criminal proceedings, the petitioner was found guilty and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of five months along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- vide order dated May 30, 2014 by the Court of Ms. Jasjit Kaur, MM-1, New Delhi. Pursuant thereto, on August 14, 2014, he was dismissed from service in terms of Rule 11 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 ('Rules of 1980', hereinafter). It was also ordered that the period of his suspension from November 18, 1996 to July 16, 2012 be treated as period not spent on duty for all intents and purposes. The departmental appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed.

5. The criminal appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence was allowed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, vide order dated June 30, 2015, and he was acquitted from all the criminal charges. The order has become final as no further appeal or revision was filed. In view of the acquittal, the respondents re-visited the dismissal order dated August 14, 2014 and the petitioner was reinstated in service on November 26, 2015 with notional benefits, but without any arrears or back wages for the period of dismissal.

6. Mr. K. C. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the period of suspension cannot be held as period not spent on duty in view of the honourable acquittal of the petitioner and therefore, he is liable to be granted back wages, seniority, promotion and other benefits for the said period. According to him, the Tribunal erred in dismissing the OA on the basis of the judgment of the learned MM-1, though the said judgment was reversed by the learned ASJ and the petitioner has been acquitted of all charges. From November 18, 1996 to July 16, 2012, the petitioner was kept under suspension and was not allowed to discharge his duties by no fault of his. In these circumstances, there is no justification in denying back wa