By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The Petitioner before this Court was employed as Sorting Assistant in Railway Mail Service. He was suspected to be involved in racket of payment of bogus heavy value money orders. An FIR was lodged. The criminal trial with reference to the first information report resulted in conviction of the petitioner for offences under Sections 419,420, 467, as per order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi dated 29.1.1997 passed in Criminal Case No. 509 of 1996. Because of the conviction of the petitioner in the criminal case under Sections 419, 420, 467 I.P.C., the railways had no other option but to dismiss the petitioner from the service vide order dated 28.2.1997 in exercise of power under Rule-9(1) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.

3. The petitioner, preferred an appeal against the order of conviction being Appeal No. 14 of 1997, which was finally allowed under judgment and order of the District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi dated 31.8.2001. The petitioner was not reinstated, he filed Original Application No. 907 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The original application was allowed vide order dated 11.12.2002 and in pursuance thereof he was reinstated.

4. There is no dispute with regard to the payment of salary and other allowances to the petitioner subsequent to reinstatement in terms of the order of the Tribunal referred to above on behalf of the petitioner-employee. He is however, not satisfied with the part of the order of the Tribunal whereunder the Tribunal has held that the petitioner will not be entitled to back wages i.e. for the period from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. Challenging the order so passed, the petitioner has approached this Court.

5. On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that once it has been found that the criminal offence as alleged against the petitioner was not made out and he has been acquitted by the criminal Court, he becomes entitled for full salary for the period, he was kept out of employment. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged by the employer and the entire proceeding had been taken at the behest of the employer.

6. Counsel for the petitioner in support of his plea has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tapash Kumar Paul v. BSNL and another, 2014(4) ESC 654 (SC), paragraphs-10, 11 and 12. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Charan Singh, JT 2015 (3) SC 344, paragraph-16 as well as paragraph 18 of the said judgment. It is lastly stated that the Apex Court itself in the case of Union of India and others v. Jaipal Singh, (2004) 1 SCC 121, has explained that if the prosecution which ultimately resulted in acquittal of the employee concerned was at the behest of or by the department itself, perhaps different considerations may arise. He submits in the facts of the case the prosecution had been initiated at the behest of the employer and therefore, the judgment in the case of Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) and another, (1996) 11 SCC 603, will not apply.

7. Counsel for the respondents however, with reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rannchhodji Chaturji Thakore (supra) submits that the Supreme Court had made a distinction in the matter of payment of back wages in respect of employees who are proceeded departmentally and then dismissed from service vis-a-vis the employees, who are dismissed from service after convicting by the competent Court of law. The Supreme Court has held that the employer has no other option, but to dismiss an employee once he is held guilty of criminal offence. In these circumstances, the employer could not obtaine the services of the employee concerned because of the law applicable, therefore, questio