The main legal point established is that even if an acquittal is based on benefit of doubt, the acquitted individual is entitled to reinstatement with back wages and other consequential benefits.

JUDGMENT

Sameer Jain, J. - Instant writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the orders impugned dated 04/04/2011 (annexure-7) and 07/07/2011 (annexure-9) and for direction to the respondents to make payments of all benefits including salary, annual grade increments and other consequential benefits with interest @24% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the case as per the petitioner are that the petitioner was working as Sub Inspector in Rajasthan Police against whom one criminal case (no. 1049/2005) was registered on the basis of charge-sheet filed under Section 384, 341/34 of IPC in the FIR No.357/2005 dated 10/06/2005 alleging that on 10/06/2005, the petitioner along with other persons illegally stopped one truck and tried to extort money by misuse of their authority.

3. In the said criminal case, the learned trial court, after conducting trial, acquitted the petitioner of the offence under Section 341/34, 384 IPC vide judgment dated 25/01/2006 giving benefit of doubt.

4. It has come on record that for the aforesaid delinquency, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 15/07/2005 (annexure-3) but on account of the temporary injunction granted by the learned additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur, the said order of dismissal could not be given effect to. after rejection/vacation of the temporary injunction on 28/01/2008 by the learned aDJ Court, an order dated 08/02/2008 (annexure-4) was passed by the respondents giving effect to the dismissal order dated 15/07/2005 from its date. against the dismissal order dated 15/07/2005, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Inspector General of Police, Jaipur Range-I, Jaipur which was dismissed vide order dated 25/08/2008 (annexure-6). Thereafter which a review petition was filed by the petitioner under Rule 34 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCa) Rules, 1958, before His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan, wherein it was held that:-

"In view of the findings of the judicial courts exonerating the delinquent, as also the finding that the invocation of summary procedures under rule 19(2) of CCa Rules, as has been done in this case, do not appear to be justified, the review petition is accepted and the orders of SP East Jaipur and IG Range-I Jaipur are set aside"

The review petition was accepted and the impugned orders by which the petitioner was dismissed from service and the appellate order rejecting his appeal were set aside vide order dated 04/03/2011 (annexure-6)

5. In compliance of the order dated 04/03/2011 passed by His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan, the respondents passed an order dated 04/04/2011 (annexure-7) by which though the petitioner was reinstated, however, the back wages for the intervening period were denied on the basis of 'no work no pay'. against the order dated 04/04/2011, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Police so far as denial of back wages was concerned, but the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 07/07/2011 (annexure-9) by relying upon judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 05/02/2009 passed in Udai Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (DB Civil Special appal No.339/1999 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.3818/1998) on the principle of 'no work no pay'.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Dr. Prabhat Kadavat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2015(1) WLC (Raj.) 299 wherein it was held that even if the exoneration/acquittal is on account of benefit of doubt, in that case also, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement and back wages with all consequential benefits.

7. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order passed by His Excellency in review petition as well as the order passed by the competent court are qua acquitting the petitioner on benefit of doubt. The petitioner was performing uniformed duties under disciplined force and the acquitta