##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:39128-DB]

REPORTABLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 233/2025 CNR: RJHC020188772025 | URN: SAW / 699U / 2025 Dalbeer Singh (Constable No. 6298) S/o Shri Harnath Singh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Saagaasi, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

2. Commissioner of Police, Police Commissionerate, Government Hostel, M.I. Road, Jaipur

3. Deputy Commissioner of Police, DCP Headquarters, Government Hostel, M.I. Road, Jaipur.

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahendra Shah, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Akshay Dutt Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samee Khan on behalf of Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

25/09/2026 Sanjay K. Agrawal, CJ:

1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, the appellant herein has preferred this appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.05.2023, by which the petitioner’s/appellant’s writ petition has partly been rejected holding that the petitioner would not be entitled for the monetary benefits.

2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on following factual backdrop:

(i) The appellant herein was convicted by the Jurisdictional Criminal Court for offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC vide judgment and order dated 15.05.2017 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with a fine of Rs.50,000/-, which was reversed by the Appellate Court and he was acquitted vide judgment and order dated 28.06.2017.

(ii) However, by order dated 08.08.2017 the appellant was dismissed from service, but thereafter realizing the mistake that he has been acquitted, vide order dated 16.02.2018 he was reinstated in service.

(iii) The learned Single Judge has quashed the order dated

08.08.2017, holding that the petitioner would be entitled for the consequential benefits, except monetary benefits. Against the non-grant of back-wages, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

3. The question would be whether the appellant would be entitled for the back-wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement that is 16.02.2018 as he has already been acquitted on 28.06.2017.

4. The issue involved herein is no longer res integra and it stands conclusively determined by their Lordships of the Supreme Court by their judgment first of all in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar ¹ in which their Lordships have considered a case where an employee was dismissed from service on account of his conviction by a criminal court for his involvement in an offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC and subsequently, he was acquitted and as a consequence, reinstated. Their Lordships while considering the issue whether back-wages should be paid to the employee for the period between the date of dismissal and the date of reinstatement held as under: -

“The reinstatement of the petitioner into the service has already been ordered by the High Court. The only question is whether he is entitled to back wages. It was his conduct of involving himself in the crime that was taken into account for his not being in service of the respondent. Consequent upon his acquittal, he is entitled to reinstatement for the reason that his service was terminated on the basis of the conviction by operation of proviso to the statutory rules applicable to the situation. The question of back wages would be considered only if the respondents have taken action by way of disciplinary proceedings and the action was found to be unsustainable in law and he was unlawfully prevented from discharging the duties. In that context, his conduct becomes relevant. Each case requires to be considered in its own backdrop. In this case, since the petitioner had in