An employee dismissed after a conviction may be reinstated upon acquittal, as the nature of the acquittal does not alter rights when no departmental inquiry was conducted.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)--The petitioner, who was employed with the Slum & JJ Department, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) since 2000, and was thereafter working on a diverted capacity with the respondent no.2/Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB), has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(a) Issue a writ, order or direction especially in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to reinstate the Petitioner to his service with all consequential benefits; and

(b) Issue such further appropriate writ/order/direction as this Hon'ble Court may be deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The brief factual matrix, as emerging from the record is that while the petitioner was working with the respondent no.2, an FIR under Section 120B/201/218/465 IPC read with Sections 7/8/12/13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) was registered against him by the CBI, on 20.05.2009. Upon a charge-sheet having been filed against him on 23.12.2009, the petitioner was under rule 10(1)(b) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, placed under suspension w.e.f. 10.02.2011 by the respondent no.2. On 03.05.2016, the petitioner's suspension was considered by the Suspension Review Committee (SRC), who decided that he be re-instated in service, pending the criminal case against him.

3. However, before this order revoking his suspension could be communicated to the petitioner, he alongwith five co-accused, came to be convicted under Sections 120B IPC read with Sections 7/12/13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act on 07.05.2016, and was thereafter, awarded a sentence of 5 years imprisonment by the learned Special Judge-03, CBI PC Act, New Delhi on 09.05.2016. The petitioner was, consequently, taken into custody on 20.07.2016 and was, therefore, again placed under "deemed suspension".

4. In the light of the petitioner's conviction, the matter was once again considered by the SRC of the respondent no.2, who decided to issue a show cause notice to him to seek his explanation as to why, owing to his conviction, he should not be dismissed from service, with a disqualification for future government employment. The petitioner's reply being found unsatisfactory, he was, on the basis of his conviction by the learned Trial Court, dismissed from service, vide order dated 12.01.2017 passed by the respondent no.2.

5. The petitioner assailed his conviction by way of a criminal appeal being Crl. A. No. 520/2016 before this Court. On 01.04.2019, this Court allowed the appeal of all the six co-accused, including the petitioner, and accordingly, set aside the conviction and sentence of imprisonment awarded to him by the learned Trial Court. Armed with the said acquittal order, the petitioner preferred a representation on 16.04.2019 to the respondents seeking his reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits, but receiving no response thereto, sent further representations on 03.05.2019, 14.11.2019, 27.01.2021 and 13.06.2022. However, since all his representations remained un-actioned, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.

6. On 24.08.2022, when notice was issued in the present petition, learned counsel for respondent no.2, had contended that since the CBI had preferred a SLP against the acquittal order dated 01.04.2019, the petitioner could not be reinstated in service till the matter is finally decided by the Supreme Court.

7. Today, he submits that even if the pendency of the SLP may not be a ground to reject the petitioner's prayer, the petitioner's acquittal vide order dated 01.04.2019 not being an honourable acquittal,