Back
2012 Supreme(Raj) 1028
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sohanlal Rajpurohit Vs. Chairman, RRVP Nigam Ltd. (Mathur, J.)
HON'BLE GOVIND MATHUR, J.
Sohanlal Rajpurohit
Versus
The Chairman, RRVP Nigam Ltd., Jaipur & Anr.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5862 of 2010, decided on 30.10.2012
M.R. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mohit Singhvi, for Petitioner;
Ravi Bhansali, for Respondents
Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sec. 13; Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees' Service Regulations, 1964, Regulation 41 — Grant of back wages, pension and retiral benefits — J.En. in RSEB — Suspended on 22.7.86 for offence of moral turpitude — Upon conviction dismissed from service on 5.8.1992 — Consequent upon acquittal in appeal, he was reinstated in service by order dated 28.12.2010 and retired him w.e.f. 31.12.2007 on superannuation — Denied payment of back wages and also for any amount beyond the subsistence allowance already paid for the period of suspension — Held — Acquittal is based on extension of benefit of doubt which is not full exoneration u/clause 2 of the Regulation 41 — He faced dismissal and its agony for a number of years and did not perform duties as a consequence of the order of dismissal — He deserves to be compensated by balancing the equities — Allowed 50% of back wages with interest @ 8% p.a. for the period he faced dismissal only — He is also held entitled to exercise option for pension as per scheme w.e.f. 1.1.2008 with interest @ 8% p.a. on arrears of pension and other post retiral benefits. (Paras 13, 15 to 19)
Writ petition allowed in part.
Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk 13( jktLFkku jkT; fo|qr e.My deZpkjh lsok fofu;e] 1964] fofu;e] 41 & fiNyk osru] isa'ku ,oa lsokfuo`fr ifjykHk fnykuk & vkj-,l-b-ch- esa dfu"B vfHk;Urk & uSfrd v?kerk ds vijk/k gsrq 22-7-86 dks fuyfEcr fd;k & nks"k flf) ij 5-8-1992 ij lsok ls c[kkZLr fd;k & vihy esa nks"keqDr gksus ij mls vkns'k fnukad 28-12-2010 ls lsok esa cgky fd;k rFkk vf/kokf"kZdh ij 31-12-2007 ls lsokfuo`r fd;k & fiNys osru ds Hkqxrku o fuyEcu vof/k ds nkSjku iwoZ esa fn;s x;s fuokZg HkRrs ls ijs fdlh Hkh izdkj dh jkf'k dk Hkqxrku djus ls badkj fd;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & nks"keqfDr lansg ds ykHk ij vk/kkfjr gS tks fd fofu;e 41 ds [k.M 2 ds rgr iw.kZ nks"keqfDr ugha gS & mlus dbZ o"kksZ rd c[kkZLrxh vkSj mldh ihM+k >syh gS rFkk c[kkZLrxh ds vkns'k ds dkj.k gh mlus dksbZ dk;Z ugha fd;k & lkE;k ds lUrqyu ls og izfrdj fn;s tkus ;ksX; gS & ftl vof/k esa og c[kkZLr jgk dsoy ml vof/k gsrq 8% okf"kZd nj ls C;kt lfgr fiNys osru dk 50% fgLlk ikus dk gdnkj gS & og Ldhe ds vuqlkj 1-1-2008 ls isa'ku gsrq fodYi dk iz;ksx djus dk gdnkj gS & lkFk gh isa'ku ,oa lsokfuo`r ckn vU; ifjykHkksa ds cdk;k ij 8% okf"kZd nj ls C;kt ikus dk gdnkj gSA ¼in la[;k 13] 15 ls 19½
;kfpdk va'kr% Lohdkj dhA
“Pursuant to the judgment dated 27.11.2008 passed in SB Criminal Appeal No.254/1992 by the Hon'ble Raj. High Court, Jodhpur, the Chairman & Managing Director, RVPN, in consultation with the Director (Fln.), RVPN, Jaipur, has decided that -
(1) The dismissal of Shri Sohan Lal Rajpurohit, JEn, RSEB, Siwana, ordered vide order No.RSEB/Enq./C-4059/D.1667 dated 5.8.1992 is set-aside and he shall be deemed to have been reinstated in service w.e.f. 05.08.1992.
(2) Since Shri Sohan Lal Rajpurohit, has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him by allowing the benefit of doubt by the Hon'ble Raj. High Court, his acquittal cannot be treated as fully exoneration in terms of clause 2 of Reg.41 of ESR-1964, as such -
(i) Shri Rajpurohit would not be entitled for the pay and allowances during the suspension period i.e. w.e.f. 22.7.1986 to 4.8.1992 except the subsistence allowance already paid to him.
(ii) His period of suspension shall be treated as the period spent on duty only for the purpose of continuity of service.
(3) Shri Rajpurohit, shall be deemed to have been retired on 31.12.2007.
(4) The pay & allowances for the period 5.8.1992 to 31.12.2007 shall not be paid to Shri Sohan Lal Rajpurohit, JEn in cash as he had not performed any kind of duties during this period. However, notional pay fixations shall be allowed to him for this period.”
2. The petition for writ then was suitably amended to challenge the order dated 28.12.2010 to the extent it denies payment of wages beyond the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension and the complete back wages from the date of dismissal to 31.12.2007, the day on which the petitioner would have been retired from service, if he would have not been dismissed.
3. The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal charges and he has been reinstated in service, then there is no justification for denying complete back wages including the wages in addition to subsistence allowance. It is asserted that the respondents at their own decided to dismiss the petitioner without waiting for final out come of the appeal against the judgment of the trial court, thus, it is not open for them to bank upon the doctrine of “no work no pay”. The contention advanced is supported by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Union of India vs. Ramswar
