CAV JUDGMENT

Heard learned advocate Mr.D.S. Vasavada for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Dipak R. Dave for the respondents.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner wants this Court to hold that the action on part of the respondents in not paying the salary and other benefits to the petitioner from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement is illegal. It is next prayed to direct the respondents to modify the order of reinstatement and also to modify the order of fixation of pay by extending all benefits including the benefit of salary, wage revision and other benefits. The petitioner seeks interest on the arrears claimed by him.

3. Noticing the attendant facts, the petitioner joined services as Junior Engineer on 10th March, 1997 in the erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board. When the petitioner was Junior Engineer, he was subjected to a criminal case filed by the Anti Corruption Bureau. In view of pendency of the criminal case, petitioner was suspended on 02nd November, 1999. It is stated that the petitioner came to be reinstated on 08th January, 2002.

3.1 The trial court convicted the petitioner by judgment and order dated 11th July, 2003. Petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.898 of 2003 against the order of conviction. However in view of the conviction order, the petitioner was issued show- cause notice dated 18th September, 2003, to which the petitioner replied on 23rd October, 2003. On account of conviction order passed by the trial court, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated by order dated 01st January, 2004. Criminal Appeal was allowed and the conviction was set aside on 15th November, 2016. Upon representations made by the petitioner, reinstatement order dated 26th December, 2017 was passed and the petitioner was actually reinstated on 01st January, 2018.

3.2 The grievance of the petitioner is about non-extension of benefits of salary and other consequential benefits including the salary, wage revision from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement. It was stated that the authorities granted increments only from the date of suspension till the date of termination despite the fact that petitioner was treated as on duty for the relevant period.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was acquitted by the appellate court and the conviction order was nullified. He further submitted that though it was open for the employer to conduct the departmental inquiry, no departmental proceedings were initiated. It was submitted that the suspension was ordered on the sole ground of pendency of criminal case in which the petitioner was acquitted. On the other hand, departmental inquiry was not started against the petitioner. The petitioner was entitled to all the benefits of salary and consequential benefits for the intervening period, it was urged. The submission was furthered by stating that there were no adverse remarks in the confidential reports of the petitioner.

4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner then relied on the Establishment Circular of the respondent company, copy of which was produced by the petitioner along with his rejoinder affidavit. It inter alia dealt with the reinstatement in service on acquittal to provide that employee under suspension who is acquitted of offence by the criminal court should be reinstated in service immediately without any avoidable delay. It was also stated that competent authority was required to make a specific order in such eventuality regarding pay and allowances to be paid to such employee for the relevant period and further to decided whether or not the said period shall be treated as period on duty. It was further argued on the basis of the contemplation in the Circular that it was incumbent on part of the authority to consider the judgment of acquittal to find out whether the employee concerned was honourably acquitted. It was submitted that the petitioner has to his credit 10