1986 Supreme(Raj) 735
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.B.Sharma, J.
Bijendra Singh - Appellant
Versus
Administrator Sikar Kendriya Bank Ltd - Respondent
S.B. C.W.P. No. 1710 of 1986.
Decided On : 14-10-1986
Acquittal from criminal charges wipes out the conviction retrospectively, and therefore, a termination order based on the conviction cannot stand.
Headnote:
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - REINSTATEMENT - ACQUITTAL OF EMPLOYEE FROM CRIMINAL CHARGE - ENTITLEMENT TO REINSTATEMENT - RAJASTHAN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1965 - SECTION 75.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Branch Manager of a Co-operative Bank, was convicted and sentenced under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, he was dismissed from service. However, on appeal, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges. He approached the Bank for reinstatement, but his request was denied.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement since his acquittal wiped out the conviction retrospectively. The Court also held that the petitioner was not entitled to salary for the period during which he was not working, but he was entitled to all other benefits, including seniority and promotion.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement after his acquittal from criminal charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the principles laid down in the Supreme Court cases of Vidya Charm Shukla v. Puroshottam Lal Kaushik and Mannilal v. Parmai Lal and Ors. to hold that the acquittal of the petitioner wiped out the conviction retrospectively, and therefore, the termination order based on the conviction could not stand.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the termination order, and directed the Bank to reinstate the petitioner with all benefits except salary for the period during which he was not working.
JUDGMENT
1. - The main point for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether because of his acquittal by a Division Bench of this Court of the charge under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement, but because the learned Counsel for non-petitioners has raised preliminary objection that in view of Section 75 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act (for short 'the Act') 1965, this writ petition should not be entertained, that point is to be decided first.
2. The facts are no longer in dispute. The petitioner was appointed as Branch Manager of Sikar Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd. Sikar in the year 1982. While he was serving as such, a First Information Report involving the petitioner for offence under Section 302/149 Indian Penal Code was filed in the Police Station. The petitioner was tried along with others under Section 302/149 by the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar and the said Judge under his judgment dated September 4, 1982 convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Section 302/149 Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was dismissed from service as a result of his conviction as aforesaid and the dismissal order was made by the Bank on September 21, 1982. The petitioner filed an appeal against the conviction before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court under its judgment dated 13tb May, 1986 while accepting the appeal set aside the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Section 302/149 Indian Penal Code and the petitioner was acquitted from the charge. After the acquittal as aforesaid, the petitioner approached the non-petitioner for his re-instatement but inspite of that and inspite of a notice dated July 18,1986 of demand of justice, the petitioner was not reinstated.
3. The petitioner therefore, filed this writ petition seeking a direction from (his Court that the non-petitioners take the petitioner on duty and pay him all arrears of salary and other benefits.
4. On the preliminary objection it is contended by the learned Counsel for the non-petitioners that the present dispute between the Society and the petitioner is a dispute touching the business of the Society and as such should be referred to arbitration under Section 5(1) of the Act to the Registrar for the decision. In respect of his submission the learned Counsel has referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Rajasthan Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jaipur v. H.M. Gupta and Ors., reported in RLT 1981 Part IV at page 39 to which I was also a party. In the aforesaid case a view was taken that the subject "business" has to be interpreted in a wide sense, the dispute regarding termination of the Services of a paid employee other than the dispute regarding the disciplinary action taken by the Society would be a dispute touching the business of the Society. In that case the matter had been referred to the arbitrator, in which an award was given. The Bank challenged the award inter alia on the ground that the matter of termination of the services of a paid employee does not in any way touch the business of the Society and the Registrar lacks inherent jurisdiction under Section 61 of the Old Act, to refer the dispute to a Board of Arbitrators. Firstly that case has no application to the facts of the instant case. Secondly even if the matter might have been such which would be referred under Section 5(1) of the Act. to the Registrar for arbitration, it does not exclude the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Not with standing the fact that there is an efficacious alternative remedy available. In the facts and circumstances of a case, the Court may interfere in the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is only a self restraint that in matters where there is an efficacious alternative remedy available the courts do not invoke its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a case where the facts are d
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
