An employee who is removed from service on the basis of a conviction that is subsequently set aside is entitled to reinstatement but not necessarily to back wages.

1. - The petitioner, Om Prakash, has preferred this writ petition for assailing the impugned order dated 1st of January, 2000 (Annex.P/1), whereby he was removed from services as a consequence of his conviction for the offence under Sections 7 read with Section 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for shot, 'the PC Act'). That apart, the petitioner has also assailed the order of the appellate authority dated 13th July, 2000 (Annex.P/3), whereby the appellate authority has dismissed his appeal.

2. Scorning the facts in detail, brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal, are that the petitioner was working as Revenue (Patwari) in the office of District Collector, Hanumangarh pursuant to his appointment dated 15th June, 1984. In the year 1994, a case under Sections 7 and 13(2) of PC Act was registered against him and after investigation a charge-sheet was submitted before the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Bikaner. On completion of trial, learned Special Judge, vide its judgment dated 30th July, 1998, convicted the petitioner for the offences aforesaid and was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 7 of PC Act and for offence under Section 13(2) of the PC Act, he was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Despite the conviction of the petitioner, he continued to serve the respondents for more than a year and thereafter vide order dated 1st of January, 2000, he was removed from services by the disciplinary authority, while resorting to Rule 19(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules of 1958).

3. Feeling disgruntled from the order of removal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority, by its order dated 13th July, 2000, fully concurred with the findings and conclusions of the disciplinary authority and dismissed his appeal. The appellate authority has concluded that the conduct of the petitioner, which has led to his conviction has warranted the said punishment, which cannot be interfered with.

4. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition, which is pending since 2000. On behalf of the petitioner, an additional affidavit is submitted on 18th July, 2013, wherein it is mentioned with clarity and precession that the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court has been set at naught by this Court on an appeal preferred by the petitioner. The appeal bearing S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 488/1998 preferred by the petitioner against his conviction was allowed by this Court by its judgment dated 30th May, 2013. A certified copy of the same has been placed on record with the additional affidavit. The learned Single Jude of this Court while allowing the appeal of the petitioner has found that the money, which was paid to the petitioner, was not in the form of an illegal gratification and in fact it was an amount paid towards Lagaan amount, and therefore, the petitioner is not guilty for the offences under Section 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act. The Court has ultimately acquitted the petitioner honorably. Concluding part of the judgment rendered in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 488/1998 is reproduced as under:-

In this case, the accused has proved beyond any manner of doubt that the money which was paid to him by the complainant was towards the due lagaan amount which the accused was authorised to recover. In this view of the matter, in the opinion of this Court, the subordinate court committed gross error as well as illegality in convicting the appellant under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Appellant is entitled to an honorable acquittal.

Resultantly, this appeal deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The conviction of the appellant as recorded vide ju