Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
Abhay M.Naik, J.
R.P.Upadhyaya - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P.and another - Respondent
W. P. No. 17017 of 2003
Decided On : 22-04-2008
Indian Penal Code - Section 161 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Section 5 Evidence Act - Section 3 Reserve Bank of India Regulations - Regulation 46 Constitution of India - Article 141 The court referred to various statutes and regulations, including the Indian Penal Code, the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Evidence Act, and the Reserve Bank of India Regulations. The court also referred to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, which states that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. The court analyzed the provisions of these statutes and regulations to determine the petitioner's entitlement to backwages and allowances.
Fact of the Case:
A criminal case was registered against the petitioner, a Tahsildar, in 1984. He was acquitted in 1997. After his acquittal, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Collector with retrospective effect but without pay and allowances. He claimed backwages for the period from 1989 to 1993. The claim was rejected. The petitioner filed a petition seeking backwages. The court examined whether the petitioner was entitled to backwages based on the principles laid down in Janki Raman's case. The court held that the petitioner could claim backwages only if he was completely exonerated and not found blameworthy in the least. The court directed the authorities to determine whether the petitioner was completely exonerated and, if not, to decide the extent to which he could be blamed. The court also stated that if the petitioner was entitled to backwages, he would also be entitled to interest at 6% per annum. The authorities were directed to make the necessary determination and payment within three months.
Finding of the Court:
The court examined the claim of the petitioner for backwages in light of various pronouncements, including Janki Raman's case. The court held that the petitioner could claim backwages only if he was completely exonerated and not found blameworthy in the least. The court also distinguished between different categories of acquittal and stated that in cases where the charges are disproved or there is insufficient evidence to uphold the guilt, the accused is entitled to full backwages. However, in cases where the acquittal is due to technical flaws or acts attributable to the employee, the employee is not entitled to backwages. The court held that the authorities had not properly considered the petitioner's claim and directed them to determine whether the petitioner was completely exonerated and, if not, to decide the extent to which he could be blamed.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner can claim backwages only if he is completely exonerated and not found blameworthy in the least. Different categories of acquittal have different implications for the entitlement to backwages. The authorities must carefully consider the circumstances of each case to determine whether the employee is entitled to backwages and allowances.
Result: The court partially allowed the petition, quashed the order rejecting the petitioner's claim for backwages, and directed the authorities to determine whether the petitioner was completely exonerated and, if not, to decide the extent to which he could be blamed. If the petitioner is found entitled to backwages, he would also be entitled to interest at 6% per annum. The authorities were directed to make the necessary determination and payment within three months.
ORDER : -
Facts of the writ petition are in a narrow compass that a Criminal Case punishable under section 161, Indian Penal Code read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered against the petitioner in the year 1984 when he was working as a Tahsildar in Distt. Rewa. After due sanction, the case was tried and the petitioner was ultimately acquitted by the Court of Special Judge, Rewa in Case No. 12/94 on 1-2-1997 (Annexure/P1). Acquittal attained finality for want appeal by the State Government. A Departmental Promotion Committee was convened on 27/28-10-1988 for considering the promotions on the post of Deputy Collector from the post of Tahsildar. Petitioner's case was kept in sealed cover due to pendency of the criminal case whereas certain Tahsildars junior to the petitioner were promoted on 28-8-1989. After acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner made representation for his consideration for promotion which was ignored. He submitted O.A. No. 77/93 wherein the M. P. State Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated 23-3-1999 (Annexure/A2) directed the State Government to open the sealed cover and give effect to the recommendations of the D.P.C. within a period of three months. It was observed by the Tribunal that the principle of 'no work, no pay' would obviously be not applicable if the petitioner has been on merits honourably exonerated of the charges framed against him. But if he has been acquitted by extending benefit of doubt or due to non-availability of evidence due to acts attributable to the petitioner, then the competent authority shall pass an appropriate order regarding payment of back salary etc. keeping in view the observations made in paragraph-7 of the Janki Raman's case reported as AIR 1991 SC 2010, Union of India vs. Janki Raman and others. Pursuant to this order, the sealed cover was opened and the petitioner was found suitable for being promoted to the post of Deputy Collector. Accordingly, by order dated 12-6-2000 (Annexure/A-3) the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Collector by giving him notional promotion with retrospective effect from 28-8-1989, that is the date from which his juniors were promoted as Deputy Collector but without pay and allowances. Petitioner was not aggrieved by the seniority which was correctly assigned, however, he made a representation for backwages w.e.f. 28-8-1989 to 3-11-1993 that is the date on which he tookover the charge of Deputy Collector. The representation was rejected on 23-11-2000. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred O. A. No. 837/2001 before the M. P. State Administrative Tribunal which on account of its abolition stood transferred to this Court.
2. Contention of the petitioner is that he was completely exonerated from the criminal charge and has not been visited with the penalty even of censure and also that his acquittal in the criminal proceedings has not been proved to be due to non-availability of evidence due to the acts attributable to him hence he is entitled to get arrears of pay and allowances for the intervening period from 28-8-1989 to 3-11-1993 in view of the principles of law laid down in Janki Raman's case (supra).
3. Respondents in their return, contended that the petitioner has not been exonerated honourably. He was acquitted due to non-availability of evidence which does not amount to bona fide exoneration of the charges. Accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled to backwages as has been rightly held by the authorities while rejecting the representation. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal, (1994) 1 SCC 541.
4. In view of the pleadings and material on record (including the additional pleadings and additional documents), the crucial question before this Court is whether the petitioner is entitled to the salary and allowances of the post of Deputy Collector for the period from 28-8-1989
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
