Difference in standards of proof in criminal cases and departmental inquiries influenced the court's decision on entitlement to back wages.

S.K. Gangele, J.

1. This order shall govern the disposal of both the writ petitions since they arise out of common order dated 24th February, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur in OAs 155/2007 and 514/2007.

2. Petitioner was appointed as Junior Telecom Officer in the year 1969. He was promoted temporarily in the year 1982. Petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 21/12/1994. A criminal case was registered against him. The order of suspension was revoked on 23/3/1995. He was again placed under suspension. This order of suspension was also revoked in January, 2003. Petitioner was prosecuted before a Criminal Court and he was acquitted vide judgment dated 26/4/204.

3. Petitioner was due for placement to next higher grade of Sr. S.D.E. A meeting of Department Promotion Committee (DPC) was held on 27/7/1995 which recommended the case of the petitioner for promotion. Because, at that time, the petitioner was facing a criminal prosecution, hence, sealed cover procedure was adopted. After acquittal, the petitioner was promoted to the grade of Sr. S.D.E. in the pay scale of Rs. 13000-350-18250.

4. Petitioner filed Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming reliefs that he be given promotion and other consequential benefits from the date when his juniors were promoted as Sr. S.D.E. in pursuance to the recommendations of the DPC dated 27/7/1995. The Tribunal has observed that as per recommendations of the DPC which was held on 27/7/1995 the petitioner was found fit for promotion along with his juniors and he was found eligible for grant of next higher scale to the post of Sr. S.D.E., however, sealed cover procedure was adopted and after acquittal of the petitioner, he was granted notional promotion w.e.f. 16/8/2000 which was not in accordance with law. Petitioner was considered in the DPC which was held on 27/7/1995 and his case was recommended for promotion, hence, after acquittal, the petitioner was entitled for promotion w.e.f. 27/7/1995 in the grade of Sr. S.D.E. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered that the petitioner was eligible for promotion and his placement in the grade of Sr. S.D.E. w.e.f. 27/7/1995. However, the Tribunal has held that the petitioner would be eligible to promotion on notional basis without any back wages, but with other consequential benefits.

5. In Writ Petition No. 5098/2009 (s), the petitioner contended that he is entitled to promotion on the grade of Sr. S.D.E. from the date when his juniors were given actual promotion and consequential benefits.

6. In connected Writ Petition No. 5099/2009(s) petitioner has prayed a relief that he be granted placement to next higher scale i.e. Sr. S.D.E. from the year 1995 retrospectively with all back wages.

7. So far as relief prayed by the petitioner in WP No. 5099/2009 (s) is concerned, the Tribunal has already granted relief to the petitioner in regard to his placement in the grade of Sr. S.D.E. in accordance with the recommendations of the DPC which was held on 27/7/1995 along with his juniors. However, the Tribunal has held that the petitioner would not be entitled to back wages. In our opinion, decision of the Tribunal in this regard is in accordance with law. Petitioner was placed under suspension. He was facing a criminal prosecution. He was acquitted by the Court after giving benefit of doubt. This is not a case where there was no evidence against the petitioner. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioner is not eligible to receive back wages.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Delhi Jal Board Vs. Mahinder Singh, AIR 2000 SC 2767, Union of India Vs. KV Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010 and Haryana State Warehousing Corp Vs. Jagat Ram and anr., (2011) 3 SCC 422, in support of his contention that the petitioner was eligible to get full back wages. In our opinion, we cannot accept the argum