An employee, upon acquittal from criminal charges and reinstatement, is entitled to receive differential back wages for the period of suspension.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. SARANGI, J.

The Petitioner, who is working as Senior Technician-Cum-Operator in the Department of Shops (Structural & Fabrication), Steel Authority of India Ltd., Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 16.04.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 260/00152 of 2015, at Annexure-4 and to issue direction to the Opposite Parties to release all benefits by treating the period of suspension as in duty, along with all consequential benefits.

2. The factual matrix of the case in brief, is that the Petitioner joined as Technician-Cum-Operator on 04.10.2001 under the Opposite Parties No. 3 to 5. While he was working as Senior Technician-Cum-Operator, on 12.06.2010, Opposite Party No.4 issued an order of suspension of the Petitioner on the allegation of initiation of proceeding in the court of law for commission of offences under Sections 498(A)/304-B/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short “D.P. Act”) with an observation that the Petitioner is placed under suspension until disposal of the criminal trial pending against him in accordance with Clause 30 (ii)(h) of the Certified Standing Orders of the company. It was further directed by Opposite Party No.4 that during the period of suspension, the Petitioner shall not enter into the work premises except with the permission of the competent Authority, nor should he leave the station without his permission and shall surrender his identity card before the superior Officer immediately.

2.1 The Petitioner faced trial in Sessions Trial Case No. 106/05 of 2010-11 arising out of Sector-7 P.S. Case No. 34/2010, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 615/2010 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela, after conclusion of the trial, acquitted the Petitioner of all the charges under Section 235 (i) of the Cr.P.C. vide judgment and order dated 22.08.2012.

2.2 After such acquittal order was passed, the Petitioner immediately intimated the said order of acquittal to the Opposite Party No.5 with a prayer to revoke the order of suspension and allow him to resume his normal duty. On receipt of such intimation from the Petitioner, Opposite Party No.5 vide order dated 05.09.2012, revoked the order of suspension and treated the period of suspension as such and directed the Petitioner to resume his duty immediately. As per the order dated 05.09.2012, the Petitioner resumed his normal duty like others and made a representation to the Authority on 09.10.2012 with a prayer to treat his suspension as duty and to release all the dues as per his entitlement and other consequential benefits. On receipt of such representation, Opposite Parties No. 3 to 5 did not take any action and sat over the matter. Thereafter, a reminder was issued on 11.07.2014 contending that he was acquitted of all the charges and became the victim of torture mentally and financially for no fault of him and also was deprived of getting three increments and its corresponding D.A. and other statutory and consequential benefits, but no action was taken thereof. As a consequence thereof, the Petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, by filing O.A. No. 606 of 2014, which was disposed of vide order dated 06.08.2014 with a direction to Opposite Parties No. 3 to 5 to consider his representation within sixty days. In compliance of the said order of the Tribunal passed on 06.08.2014 in O.A. No. 606 of 2014, Opposite Party No. 5, vide order dated 17.10.2014, rejected the representation of the Petitioner dated 09.10.2012 and the reminder dated 11.07.2014 on the ground that it would be detrimental to the maintenance of discipline, if service/financial benefits are granted for the period of his suspension, as a matter of course.

2.3 Against such rejection of representation, the Petitioner filed O.A. No. 260/00152 of 201