An employee acquitted of criminal charges is not automatically entitled to back wages if the suspension was due to their involvement in a crime, reflecting the employer's discretion based on the circumstances.

ORDER

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:

'It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and by appropriate writ order or direction the order dated 23.06.2015 so far it is relates to denial of pay and allowances from the date of suspension i.e. 04.09.2006 to the date of termination i.e. 28.12.2007 despite treating it to be the period spend on duty and the period from 28.12.2007 to 08.05.2015 by treating it to be non working may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner from 04.09.2006 to 08.05.2015 including pay and allowances for the said period.

Or any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.'

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working on the post of Lower Divisional Clerk (LDC). Counsel submits that the petitioner was arrested in a Criminal Case lodged against her for the offence under Section 302 and 120B IPC. On the basis of her arrest, she was placed under suspension on 04.09.2006 and she remained under suspension till 13.09.2007. When the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 302 and 120B IPC by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, Alwar in Sessions Case No.38/2006 and she was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Counsel submits that on the basis of judgment of conviction dated 13.09.2007, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 28.12.2007. Counsel submits that against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.09.2007, the petitioner submitted D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1651/2007 before this Court and the same was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 08.05.2015 and the petitioner was acquitted from all the charges. Counsel submits that after the judgment of acquittal, the petitioner was reinstated back in service by the respondents vide order dated 23.06.2015 with the following terms and conditions: 1. Since the petitioner was acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt, hence the suspension period of the petitioner w.e.f. 04.09.2006 to 28.12.2007 was treated as a suspension period for the purpose of counting the service of the petitioner no pay and allowances or any additional difference amount was paid for this intervening period.

2. With effect from 28.12.2007 to 08.05.2015 was treated as dies non and no pay and other allowances were given for this period.

3. All other service benefits were granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 08.05.2015 i.e. from the date of his acquittal.

4. Counsel submits that so far as the condition No.3 is concerned, the petitioner is not aggrieved. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Condition Nos.1 and 2. Counsel submits that the petitioner has been given honourable acquittal by this Court, hence, she is entitled to get all service benefits including pay grade, increments etc. for the purpose of counting her pensionary service. Counsel submits that before passing the impugned order dated 28.12.2007, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner which has resulted in violation of principle of natural justice. Counsel submits that under similar circumstances in the case of State of Rajashtan and Anr. vs. Mangat Lal Sidana (Civil Appeal No.2386/2022), the Hon'ble Apex Court had dealt with an identical issue and held that the employee must be given an opportunity before passing any adverse order against him under Rule 54(2) and 54(3) of the Rajasthan Services Rules (for short 'RSR'). Apart from above, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Shambu Nath Singla (Civil Appeal No.11459/1995). He has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Nemi Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. Reported in 2004(5) WLC 642 and Indra Raj Barupal vs. The State of Rajasht