1996 JTR(SC) 1761
1997 AIR(SC) 1802 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 1128 ; 1998 1 CTC 557 ; 1997 91 FJR 53 ; 1996 Supp JT 77 ; 1997 2 LLJ 683 ; 1997 2 LLN 979 ; 1997 2 RSJ 695 ; 1996 8 Scale 443 ; 1996 11 SCC 603 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 491 ; 1996 SCR 14 ; 1997 1 SCT 824 ; 1997 1 SLR 14 ; 1997 KHC 1622 ; 1996 2 KLT(Online) 1149 ; 1997 1 Supreme 152
1997(1) Supreme 152
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore -Petitioner
versus
The Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar Gujarat & Anr. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 22538 of 1996
(CC - 5509/96)
Decided on 28-10-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : H.A. Raichura, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Question of back wages would be considered only if services of an employee were terminated by way of disciplinary proceedings and action was found to be unsustainable in law and that employee was unlawfully prevented from discharging the duties.
Act
Referred
:INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302, S.34
SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The petitioner was charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for involvement in a crime, leading to conviction and life imprisonment, which formed the basis for his dismissal from service. Upon acquittal by the High Court, the dispute centered on whether back wages were payable after reinstatement, with the statutory provisions governing service termination and recovery of wages intersecting with the principles of Section 34 read with Section 302 IPC shaping the liability and remedies.
(B) Key principles include that reinstatement follows acquittal when termination was based on conviction, but back wages are not payable if the petitioners own conduct involving crime and incarceration disabled him from rendering service; each case must be assessed on its specific backdrop and disciplinary outcome.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Junior Clerk in the respondent-Electricity Board, was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for a crime committed on October 1, 1986, dismissed from service, acquitted by the High Court on October 14, 1992, and sought reinstatement with back wages through a writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The High Court reinstated the petitioner but denied back wages, observing that his conduct in involving himself in a crime led to his inability to serve, and the respondents actions were lawful; the learned Single Judge and Division Bench were correct in law.
Issues:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to back wages after reinstatement following acquittal, given that his service was terminated due to conviction and incarceration.
Ratio Decidendi:
Since the petitioners own conduct involving a crime caused the termination of service and he was later imprisoned, he is not entitled to back wages upon reinstatement after acquittal, even though the conviction was subsequently set aside.
Result:
The special leave petition is dismissed.
(A) The petitioner was charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for involvement in a crime, leading to conviction and life imprisonment, which formed the basis for his dismissal from service. Upon acquittal by the High Court, the dispute centered on whether back wages were payable after reinstatement, with the statutory provisions governing service termination and recovery of wages intersecting with the principles of Section 34 read with Section 302 IPC shaping the liability and remedies.
(B) Key principles include that reinstatement follows acquittal when termination was based on conviction, but back wages are not payable if the petitioners own conduct involving crime and incarceration disabled him from rendering service; each case must be assessed on its specific backdrop and disciplinary outcome.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Junior Clerk in the respondent-Electricity Board, was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for a crime committed on October 1, 1986, dismissed from service, acquitted by the High Court on October 14, 1992, and sought reinstatement with back wages through a writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The High Court reinstated the petitioner but denied back wages, observing that his conduct in involving himself in a crime led to his inability to serve, and the respondents actions were lawful; the learned Single Judge and Division Bench were correct in law.
Issues:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to back wages after reinstatement following acquittal, given that his service was terminated due to conviction and incarceration.
Ratio Decidendi:
Since the petitioners own conduct involving a crime caused the termination of service and he was later imprisoned, he is not entitled to back wages upon reinstatement after acquittal, even though the conviction was subsequently set aside.
Result:
The special leave petition is dismissed.
ORDER
Delay condoned.
2. This case does not warrant interference for the reason that, admittedly, the petitioner was charged for an offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC for his involvement in a crime committed on October 1, 1986. The Sessions Judge had convicted the petitioner under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. On that basis, the respondents had taken action to have him dismissed from service since he was working as a Junior Clerk in the respondent-Electricity Board. The petitioner challenged the validity of the dismissal order by way of a special civil application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Pending disposal, the Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated October 14, 1992 acquitted him of the offence. Consequently, while disposing of the writ petition, the learned single Judge directed the respondent to reinstate him into the service with continuity of the service, but denied back wages. The petitioner then filed Letters Patent Appeal No.319/93 which was dismissed by the impugned order dated August 26, 1993. Thus, this special leave petition.
3. 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 his own backdrops. In this case, since the petitioner had involved himself in a crime, though he was later acquitted, he had disabled himself from rendering the service on account of conviction and incarceration in jail. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to payment of back wages. The learned single Judge and the Division Bench have not committed any error of law warranting interference.
4. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
SLP dismissed.
*******