Employee dismissed solely on criminal conviction entitled to reinstatement upon appellate acquittal; foundation of dismissal vanishes, department must reinstate before any further disciplinary action.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Member(J))

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

“…may be pleased to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings No.B2/201, dated 11/18.11.2016 and B2/201, dated 03.03.2017 passed by th the 4 respondent and confirmed by the impugned proceedings No.VIG/16-07/16-17/MA,dated nd 22.09.2017, passed by the 2 respondent and quash them as illegal and arbitrary and direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant as GDS BPM, Nallankulam BO in view of the acquittal of the applicant by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Crl A(MD). No.340/2006 with all consequential benefit’s including arrears of TRCA and other accrued benefits and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice”.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the OA , as submitted by the applicant are as follows:

The applicant was appointed as GDS BPM at Nallankullam Branch Post Office in Tirunelveli Postal Division on 07.09.1995. On 31.01.2004, he was arrested on suspicion of involvement in a murder that occurred in his village. Consequently, the applicant was under judicial custody from 20.08.2004 to 14.10.2004 and was placed on "deemed put off duty" by the 4th Respondent. He was released on bail on 15.10.2004. On 15.03.2006, in S.C. No. 111 of 2005, the Hon’ble Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Tirunelveli, convicted the applicant. Following this, the 4th respondent issued a show cause notice on 11.07.2006, questioning why the applicant should not be dismissed from service due to the conviction. The applicant responded on 31.08.2006, informing the 4th Respondent that he had appealed the conviction to the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Crl A (MD) No. 340 of 2006 and requested that no action be taken until the appeal was resolved. Despite this, the applicant was dismissed from service on 15.09.2006. On 22.09.2010, the Madras High Court overturned the conviction and acquitted the applicant in Crl A (MD) No. 340 of 2006. Following the acquittal, the applicant requested for reinstatement and all consequential benefits through representations made on 21.12.2010 and subsequently to the 3rd Respondent and Appellate Authority. These requests received no response. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Criminal Appeals No. 248-251 of 2012 filed by the aggrieved parties on 28.10.2015. Consequently, the applicant submitted a reinstatement appeal to the Director of Postal Services, Southern Region, Madurai, on 20.11.2015, which was rejected on 11/18.11.2016, on the ground of his involvement in a serious crime. An appeal to the Appellate Authority was also rejected as time-barred by order, dated 03.03.2017. The Revision Petition filed with the 2nd respondent was likewise rejected on 22.09.2017. Challenging these decisions, the applicant has come before this Tribunal.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the charges against the applicant in Criminal Case S.C. No. 111/2005, filed before the Hon’ble Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Tirunelveli, were entirely false, fabricated, and frivolous, and that the facts were not properly appreciated. He argued that, although the applicant was initially convicted, the Hon’ble Madras High Court, upon appeal, found the conviction unsustainable in law. The High Court therefore overturned the Trial Court's judgmen