IMPORTANT POINT
An employee acquitted of criminal charges related to their public service role is entitled to reinstatement with retrospective benefits, as the prosecution was sanctioned by the employer.

JUDGMENT :

Rahul Bharti, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

2. The facts of this case wrap up a legal issue which is that upon acquittal of the petitioner in an appeal from a conviction in a criminal case, should the reinstatement in service of the petitioner have taken place from and with retrospective date and effects or from the prospective date and effects. The petitioner claims retrospect and the respondent No. 1 has granted prospect and that has created the text and context of the present writ petition.

3. By the aforesaid reference, the facts of the case have a very concise frame. The petitioner was in service of the respondent No. 1 i.e. National Insurance Company Limited, serving as an assistant in the clerical cadre on permanent basis. In the year, 2004, the petitioner came to be booked by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Anti-Corruption Branch, Jammu in a case for an act of accepting and receiving illegal gratification of an amount of Rs.1,500/-. The petitioner was booked on the basis of a trap set up by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) at the instance of a complainant namely Layaqat Ali. The trap was carried out not at the premises of the office/workplace of the petitioner in the employment/service of the respondent No. 1. The arrest of the petitioner had taken place followed by the investigation and presentation of a criminal challan under section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006 read with Section 161 of the Ranbir Penal Code.

4. The petitioner was arraigned and put to charge on 20.05.2004 by the trial Court of Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Jammu. The petitioner came to be convicted and sentenced vide judgement dated 29.12.2007 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence under section 5(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006 and imprisonment for a period of two years and fine under section 161 of the Ranbir Penal Code with both sentences to run concurrently.

5. Following the petitioner's conviction in said criminal case, the respondent No. 1 had come to put the petitioner to show cause vide a notice dated 30.01.2008 which had resulted in an order of dismissal dated 19.03.2008 of the petitioner from the service of respondent No. 1. Thus, from 19.03.2008 the petitioner ceased to be in employment/service of the respondent No. 1 and the sole cause which led to dismissal of the petitioner was his conviction in said criminal case of receiving illegal gratification.

6. The petitioner, in order to vindicate his Innocence In the case, came to prefer an appeal CRA No. 31/2007 before the then High Court of Jammu and Kashmir (presently being the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh) against his conviction. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir came to set aside the judgment of the conviction against the petitioner vide its judgement dated 09.01.2018 thereby acquitting the petitioner of the charges levelled against him resulting in restoring the personal liberty of the petitioner from the imprisonment as well.

7. Upon earning his acquittal, the petitioner registered his claim vide letter dated 10.04.2018 before the respondent No. 1 for his reinstatement. Since the basis upon which the respondent No. 1 had effected the dismissal of the petitioner from the service was the conviction of the petitioner by the criminal court, so the respondent No. 1 was left with no other option except to effect the reinstatement of the petitioner in the service and for that an order of reinstatement came to be passed on 09.07.2018 by the Chief Regional Manager as being the appointing authority on behalf of respondent No. 1.

8. In terms of this reinstatement order, the petitioner got reinstated with immediate effect however without any benefit for the period from the date of his dismissal from service coming into effect i.e