Acquittal in a criminal case does not entitle automatic reinstatement in employment; employers have discretionary power in disciplinary proceedings based on misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.

1. By way of the present petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(19) The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order:

(A) Quashing and setting aside the order dt.24.7.2010 terminating the service of the petitioner as also the appellate order dt.9.10.2010, as also the order of dismissal dt. 21.10.99, and to reinstate the petitioner in service, with all benefits including back wages with 12% interest.

(B) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the Respondent may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service.

(C) To grant such and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper.”

2. Heard Mr. P.A. Jadeja, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, learned advocate appearing for Nanavati Associates for the respondents.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present Petition reads thus:

3.1. The petitioner was appointed on 01.03.1978 as Shroff / godown Keeper by the respondent – Bank and had served, till the petitioner came to be dismissed from service by order dated 21.10.1999. On being convicted by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 506(2) and 332 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE by judgment dated 21.10.1999, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1999 before the Sessions Court at Gondal, wherein, by an order dated 15.02.2001, the Sessions Court set aside the order passed by the Magistrate and remanded the matter back for de-novo trial. After de-novo trial, by judgment dated 14.10.2005, the Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 353 , 332, 323 and 506(1) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment.

3.2. The petitioner herein preferred Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2005 before the Sessions Court, Dhoraji. By an order dated 07.01.2010, the appeal came to be allowed and the petitioner herein came to be acquitted.

3.3. After the acquittal, the petitioner made representation on 27.01.2010 to the respondents requesting to reinstate him in service and pay all the benefits including wages. Since the petitioner was not reinstated in service, Special Civil Application No. 3850 of 2010 had been filed before this Court praying to review the order of the dismissal dated 21.10.1999 and to reinstate the petitioner in service. The said petition came to be disposed of by an order dated 04.05.2010, directing the respondents to decide the case of the petitioner for reinstatement within 12 weeks. The said order is duly produced at Annexure-E.

3.4. Instead of reinstating the petitioner in service, the respondent no.2 issued a show cause notice dated 01.07.2010 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his service should not be terminated in connection with the charge-sheet dated 30.11.1988. The Inquiry Report dated 30.06.2010 was also accompanied with the said notice. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice on 13.07.2010.

3.5. After considering the reply, the respondent no.2 by order dated 24.07.2010 terminated the services of the petitioner, w.e.f. 21.10.1999, i.e. date of dismissal.

3.6. The petitioner preferred Appeal, challenging the said order before the appellate authority, which came to be dismissed by order dated 09.10.2010.

3.7. In view of the aforesaid, petitioner herein has approached this Court and prayed for the reliefs as stated herein above.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

4.1. Mr. P.A. Jadeja, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondent bank, charge-sheet came to be issued to the petitioner on 30.11.1988 f