The court emphasized the principle of reinstatement after the resolution of criminal cases and departmental enquiries, highlighting the obligation to take back the employee on duty with consequential benefits.

1. - The petitioner is a helper since 8th July.1982 in the Public Works Department of the Government of Rajasthan. The petitioner has come with the case that he was appointed as work charged employee and kept on muster roll He fell ill and was not present on duty from 1st April 1985 to 15th October. 1985 and after recovering from health he joined his duty on 6th October. 1985 and continued there up to 25th December 1986. But on 26th December. 1986. he was not allowed to join his duty on the pretext that a criminal case was pending against him in respect of an incident dated 23rd September. 1986. Apart from the criminal case a departmental enquiry was also initiated against the petitioner and other persons involved in the incident dated 23rd September. 1956. In criminal case the petitioner was acquitted by the Chief Judicial "Magistrate No. 4 Jaipur City on 13th May. 1988. The Complainant Amar Chand Pareek. also requested the authorities of the Department to allow him to withdraw the complaint against the petitioner and others and thereupon on 30th June. 1989. an order was passed in the enquiry that the enquiry be treated to have been closed and further that the petitioner be given the benefit of fixation increments and all these matters may be settled. The petitioner made representations before the concerned authorities. the last representation being Annexure/6. dated 21st September. 1989. b.it no relief was granted. Hence this writ petition was filed before this Court on 3rd January. 1990. A show cause notice was issued on 31st January. 1990. as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and disposed of. Thereafter no reply was filed although three months' time was granted on 10th May. 1990. and thereafter he matter came up before u Court on 20th August. 1990. It was recorded in the presence of the Addl. Government Advocate Shri K.N. Gall; that the matter will be finally heard on 27th August 1990 whether any reply is filed or not Even hen reply has not been filed. The petitioner's allegations remained uncontrovrted.

2. I have gone through the pleadings in the writ petition and the documents annexed thereto. It is clearly made out that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case as has been mentioned in the order dated 30th June. 1981. Annx. 2 and the department at enquiry which was pending against him has a so been closed by the order dated 30th June. 1.89 with the mention that all the matters must be treated to have been closed and the matters relating to fixation and annual grade increment may also be settled. Shri Sharma Deputy Government Advocate has submitted that this order dated 30th June 1989 has no mention with regard to the petitioner's reinstatement and therefore he cannot claim the relief of reinstatement. On the face of the order dated 30th June. 1989. it is clear that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case and the departmental enquiry was also over. It is not the case that the petitioner was suspended during the pendency of the criminal case or the departmental proceedings. There appears to be no justification in not taking the petitioner back on duty in view of the order dated 30th June 1989. Once an order has been passed recording therein that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case and the departmental proceedings have been closed and the matters relating to fixation and annual grade increments may be settled there appears to be no justification in not taking the petitioner back on duty. No order had been passed at any stage against the petitioner during the pendency of the criminal case or the departmental enquiry removing the petitioner from service. or placing him under suspension. In this view of the matter it will be a colossal wastage of State exchequer if the petitioner is allowed to remain without duty for all this period and then to pay him for the period for which he may not have worked. In this view of the matter I hold that the petitioner as a