Reinstatement after acquittal does not automatically entitle an employee to back wages; the principle of 'no work no pay' is applicable where the absence from duty was a direct consequence of the employee's own criminal conviction for which the employer was not responsible.

(1). The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 07.03.2020 (Annexure P34) whereby for the period from 15.03.2016 to 18.12.2019 has been treated as dies non and the benefit of payment of backwages/arrears, other perks and allowances, promotional benefits etc. have been denied to him. A further direction is sought to the respondents to release the payment to the petitioner as claimed vide representation dated 27.01.2020 (Annexure P33) beside payment of compensation of Rs.2 crores to the petitioner towards emotional trauma meted out to him by the respondents.

Facts.

(2). The petitioner joined the respondent as Accounts Clerk on 14.09.1990 and earned promotion as Accounts Officer on 01.07.2015. An FIR No.266/2011 under Sections 302/201/452/323 IPC was registered at Police Station Indri, Distt. Karnal wherein it was alleged that the petitioner being member of the Panchayat, on the next day of the murder i.e. on 23.07.2011, tried to get effect a compromise between the complainant party and his co-accused. The petitioner was ultimately convicted vide judgment dated 15.03.2016 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Karnal wherein he was sentenced to undergo RI for life with fine of Rs.7000/-. The CRA-D-309-DB-2016 preferred by the petitioner before this Court has been admitted and the sentence has been suspended by this Court vide order dated 31.05.2016 (Annexure P1). After the judgment of conviction, the respondents placed the petitioner in suspension vide order dated 05/06.04.2016 (Annexure P2), however, without payment of any subsistence allowance, to which he was held entitled subsequently on 07.07.2016. Eventually, the petitioner was acquitted by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 24.09.2016 (Annexure P19) and pursuant to the filing of the representation dated 22.10.2019 (Annexure P20), the petitioner was allowed to join the services of the respondents w.e.f. 15.03.2016. However, the respondents decided that the period from 15.03.2016 to 18.12.2019 be considered as dies non, no work no pay of the petitioner and identically placed persons have been treated partially.

(3). Hence this writ petition.

Contentions.

(4). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the that the reliance placed by the respondents on Regulation 29 read with Rule 37 of the National Fertilizers Ltd. Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, to justify dismissal merely on the ground of conviction, is itself constitutionally untenable, as these provisions, to the extent they permit automatic or mechanical dismissal merely because there is a conviction, without any independent consideration of the underlying conduct and surrounding circumstances, are hit by Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India which mandates that a person shall not be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after being informed of the charges and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, subject only to the limited exceptions carved out in the proviso.

(5). He submits that the settled legal position, reflected also in the scheme of Rule 19(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, is that even in cases where clause (a) of second proviso to Article 311(2) is invoked, the disciplinary authority must apply its mind to the nature of the conduct which led to conviction and decide whether the extreme penalty is warranted and convict