In cases where an employee is involved in a crime, subsequent acquittal does not automatically entitle them to backwages, especially if the 'no work no pay' principle applies.

ORDER : – The present petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes an exception to the order dated 6-5-2009 (Annexure P/12) by which the petitioner’s claim for the backwages has been rejected by the respondents.

2. The facts adumbrated in nutshell are that the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector in police department and at the relevant time, he was posted at Special Branch, Police Headquarter, Bhopal. A criminal case No. 369/96 was registered at Police Station – Agar, Dist. Shajapur for commission of offences under sections 8/18 and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act. He was put under suspension by order dated 24-2-1997. The petitioner was convicted by the Court of Special Judge, Shajapur in Sessions Trial No. 10/1998 and was sentenced to undergo 10 years I and to pay a fine of Rupees One Lakh. Further he was convicted under section 29 of NDPS Act and was sentenced to undergo 2 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under section 58(1) of NDPS Act and sentenced for six months RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and also under section 211 of Indian Penal Code, RI for 2 years and fine of Rs. 500/- by the judgment dated 4-8-1999.

3. The services of the petitioner were dismissed on account of the conviction by order dated 14-10-1999 as per para 238 of Police Regulations. Against the order of conviction, the petitioner filed an appeal before the High Court, Bench at Indore. The said appeal was allowed by judgment dated 8-11-2006 and the petitioner was acquitted of the charges. The petitioner approached the Department for setting aside his dismissal and reinstating him. He was reinstated by order dated 26-7-2007. His joining was accepted by letter dated 31-7-2007. The said order was amended. The petitioner’s suspension period has been considered to be on duties, but on the basis of no work no pay, his salary has been denied by order dated 8-9-2008. The said order was challenged before this Court in W. P. (s) No. 5884/2008 which was disposed off by order dated 21-10-2008 directing the respondents to pass a fresh order in respect of backwages for the petitioner after hearing him. By the impugned order, the claim for backwages has been rejected which is impugned in the present petition.

4. Counsel for the petitioner argued that since the petitioner has been acquitted in appeal by the High Court and no charge was found proved against him, the respondents could not have denied his backwages during conviction and suspension. It is further submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated and he remained in jail and did not work anywhere during the trial and ultimately, he was acquitted and no charge was found against him. In such circumstances, the respondents could not have deprived him from backwages. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by Single Bench in the case of R. P. Upadhyaya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr., 2008(4) M.P.L.J. 162, State of Madhya Pradesh and anr. vs. Shankar Lal Sahu and anr., 2001(2) M.P.H.T. 19 (DB) and Union of India and ors. vs. Mohd. Sharif Khan, 2006(4) M.P.H.T. 140 (DB).

5. Counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that since the petitioner was involved in a criminal case and he could not work due to remaining in jail after conviction and, therefore, the respondents cannot be saddled with liability to pay backwages to the petitioner for the period for which the petitioner remained in jail. The respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for backwages on the ground of no work no pay.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I do not find any merit in the petition.

7. The petitioner was initially convicted by the Court of Special Judge by judgment dated 4-8-1999 for commission of offences under the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to RI for 10 years coupled with other conviction and sentences under different provisions. The services of the petitioner were dismissed by order dated 14-10-1999