IMPORTANT POINT
An employee dismissed due to criminal conviction is not entitled to reinstatement or back wages if acquitted after retirement, as per Article 311.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. The petitioner, a tubewell operator in the Tubewell Division of the Department of Irrigation, Government of Uttar Pradesh, last posted at Bareilly, seeks redemption of his lost service and its incidents, to wit, payment of his emoluments for the period that he was out of service, pension etc. The petitioner lost his service in consequence of conviction in a criminal case on charges of corruption by the Trial Court. Now that he has been acquitted in appeal by this Court, he says that he is entitled to the revocation of the order of his dismissal from service dated 28.12.1983 with consequential benefits.

2. The facts, giving rise to this writ petition, are:

The petitioner was appointed a tubewell operator in the Tubewell Division of the Department of Irrigation vide letter of appointment dated 17.8.1977 issued by the Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division, Bareilly. He was posted at Tubewell No. 32, Fatehgang-West. He joined service on 1.9.1977. As the letter of appointment would show, the petitioner's services were temporary and carried a condition that the employment could be determined by either side, giving a month's notice. While working at Village Satuia Khass, falling within the local limits of Police Station Fatehganj-West, District Bareilly, the petitioner was accused of accepting a sum of Rs. 30/- in illegal gratification from one Puran Lal Yaduvanshi on 15.12.1978. The illegal gratification was said to be accepted by the petitioner to favour Yaduvanshi in the matter of not making an irrigation entry for him in Government record. A First Information Report was registered against the petitioner on 15.12.1978, giving rise to Crime No. 159 of 1978, under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Fatehganj-West, District Bareilly. After investigation, the Police charge-sheeted the petitioner on 21.8.1979. The petitioner stood his trial on the aforesaid charge before the Additional District and Sessions Judge-VII, Bareilly, who convicted and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-.

3. The aforesaid information was conveyed to the Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division, U.P., Bareilly by the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Organization, C.I.D., U.P., Lucknow vide letter dated 16.11.1983. Acting on the said information, the Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division, Bareilly, vide his Order No. 46/83-84 dated 28.12.1983 dismissed the petitioner from service, consequent upon conviction. No departmental proceedings were initiated or held against the petitioner, where he was found guilty. The dismissal from service was based, according to the petitioner, on the judgment of conviction alone, passed by the Trial Judge.

4. It also appears, according to the prosecution case before the Criminal Court, that the petitioner was caught red-handed on 15.12.1978 accepting a bribe of Rs. 30/-. He was immediately arrested. The petitioner was suspended from service by an order dated 18.12.1978. During the period of suspension, the petitioner was paid half his salary, including allowances as per standing orders of the State Government. This happened in the interregnum between the petitioner's arrest and his conviction by the Criminal Court. What happened after the judgment of conviction was passed by the Trial Judge, has already been said and need not be repeated.

5. The petitioner challenged his conviction by the Trial Judge before this Court by preferring an appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 2187 of 1983. The appeal was heard and allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 1.2.2023 and the petitioner was acquitted. The acquittal, however, was one extending the benefit of doubt. Post acquittal, the petitioner lodged an application before the Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division, Bareilly and the Superintending Engineer, Tubewell Central, Lucknow, requesting that in accordance with Government Orders on the subject, the responde