2003 JTR(SC) 1081
2004 13 AIC 547 ; 2004 AIR(SC) 1005 ; 2003 AIR(SCW) 6635 ; 2004 1 AllCJ 490 ; 2004 1 AWC 748 ; 2003 99 FLR 1049 ; 2003 4 JCR(SC) 222 ; 2004 2 JLJR(SC) 68 ; 2004 4 JLJR(SC) 68 ; 2003 10 JT 103 ; 2004 1 KLT(SN) 66 1 ; 2004 LIC 75 ; 2004 1 LLJ 431 ; 2004 1 LLN 520 ; 2004 3 MhLJ(SC) 793 ; 2004 3 MPLJ 569 ; 2004 2 PLJR(SC) 92 ; 2004 RLR 89 ; 2003 9 Scale 366 ; 2004 1 SCC 121 ; 2004 SCC(L&S) 12 ; 2003 Supp5 SCR 115 ; 2004 1 SCT 108 ; 2004 2 SLR 251 ; 2004 1 UPLBEC 527 ; 2004 KHC 260 ; 2003 7 Supreme 676
2003(7) Supreme 676
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Doraiswamy Raju & Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Jaipal Singh -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 8565 of 2003
(@ SLP (C) No. 24017 of 2002)
Decided on 3-11-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Raju Ramachandra, Additional Solicitor General, R.C. Verma, Mukesh Verma, Mrs. Sushma Suri, B.V. Balaram Das, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ranbir Singh Yadav, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
If as a citizen an employee or public servant got involved in a criminal case and after initial conviction by trial Court, he gets acquittal on appeal, department/employer while reinstating him cannot be burdened with back wages.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302
SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The interplay between service law and the Indian Penal Code sections, specifically Section 302 read with Section 34, is central to this case where an employee was charge-sheeted for murder, convicted, and later acquitted on appeal. The Constitution of India, Article 136, governs the special leave jurisdiction exercised by the court in reviewing the High Court's orders concerning reinstatement and back wages in light of the concurrent criminal proceedings and the doctrine of separation between departmental duties and criminal prosecution. The Department's stance that it cannot be held liable for back wages during the period of conviction is weighed against the principles of natural justice and the consequences of acquittal.
(B) Key legal principles include that an order rejecting a special leave petition at the threshold is not a binding precedent or declaration of law. A public servant cannot be retained in service during criminal prosecution and conviction, but upon subsequent acquittal, the department cannot be automatically saddled with liability for back wages if it was not party to the criminal proceedings. The period of non-service due to conviction is not counted for pay purposes, but re-instatement must be effected. The doctrine of reasonableness applies to balance departmental authority and employee rights post-acquittal.
Facts of the case:
The respondent was a public servant who was charge-sheeted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC along with his brother. He was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, but later acquitted by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Despite the acquittal, the respondent was not reinstated, prompting a writ petition that resulted in an order for reinstatement with full back wages. The appellants challenged this order, specifically contesting the back wages component.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found that while the respondent was entitled to re-instatement after acquittal, the High Court erred in awarding back wages for the period of conviction. The period of non-service was not to be counted as service, and the department was not liable to pay for a period during which it could not avail the respondent's services. The special leave petition order was not a binding precedent, but the merits-based decision supporting the denial of back wages was persuasive and correctly applied.
Issues:
Whether a department is liable to pay back wages to a public servant who was convicted and later acquitted on appeal, and whether the period of non-service should be counted as service for pay purposes.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that although re-instatement is mandatory post-acquittal, back wages are not payable for the period of conviction because the department was not in possession of the employee and could not derive any benefit, aligning with the principles of reasonableness and departmental autonomy from criminal liability.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the High Court's order for back wages is set aside, and reinstatement is directed to occur within thirty days without back wages for the conviction period.
(A) The interplay between service law and the Indian Penal Code sections, specifically Section 302 read with Section 34, is central to this case where an employee was charge-sheeted for murder, convicted, and later acquitted on appeal. The Constitution of India, Article 136, governs the special leave jurisdiction exercised by the court in reviewing the High Court's orders concerning reinstatement and back wages in light of the concurrent criminal proceedings and the doctrine of separation between departmental duties and criminal prosecution. The Department's stance that it cannot be held liable for back wages during the period of conviction is weighed against the principles of natural justice and the consequences of acquittal.
(B) Key legal principles include that an order rejecting a special leave petition at the threshold is not a binding precedent or declaration of law. A public servant cannot be retained in service during criminal prosecution and conviction, but upon subsequent acquittal, the department cannot be automatically saddled with liability for back wages if it was not party to the criminal proceedings. The period of non-service due to conviction is not counted for pay purposes, but re-instatement must be effected. The doctrine of reasonableness applies to balance departmental authority and employee rights post-acquittal.
Facts of the case:
The respondent was a public servant who was charge-sheeted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC along with his brother. He was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, but later acquitted by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Despite the acquittal, the respondent was not reinstated, prompting a writ petition that resulted in an order for reinstatement with full back wages. The appellants challenged this order, specifically contesting the back wages component.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found that while the respondent was entitled to re-instatement after acquittal, the High Court erred in awarding back wages for the period of conviction. The period of non-service was not to be counted as service, and the department was not liable to pay for a period during which it could not avail the respondent's services. The special leave petition order was not a binding precedent, but the merits-based decision supporting the denial of back wages was persuasive and correctly applied.
Issues:
Whether a department is liable to pay back wages to a public servant who was convicted and later acquitted on appeal, and whether the period of non-service should be counted as service for pay purposes.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that although re-instatement is mandatory post-acquittal, back wages are not payable for the period of conviction because the department was not in possession of the employee and could not derive any benefit, aligning with the principles of reasonableness and departmental autonomy from criminal liability.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the High Court's order for back wages is set aside, and reinstatement is directed to occur within thirty days without back wages for the conviction period.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. The above appeal has been filed against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 30.10.2001 in CWP No.12929 of 1999 whereunder the Division Bench has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents and granted relief, as prayed for, directing re-instatement of the respondent with full back wages and consequential benefits. The respondent was involved in a criminal case and he was charge-sheeted for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC along with his brother and though he was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari for the same by a judgment dated 05.03.1997, on further appeal, before the High Court, the Division Bench of the High Court returned a verdict of acquittal. As a consequence thereof, since, he was not re-instated inspite of the order of acquittal, he moved the High Court and obtained orders, as noticed supra. Aggrieved, the appellants have come before this Court.
3. Heard Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants, who placed strong reliance upon the decision of this Court in 1996 (11) SCC 603 : Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore Vs. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) and Anr. wherein this Court, in a case identical to the facts of the present case, has chosen to order only re-instatement but denied back-wages on the ground that the department was in noway concerned with the criminal case and, therefore, cannot be saddled with liability also for back wages for the period when he was out of service during/after conviction suffered by the respondent in the criminal case. Per contra, Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent sought to place reliance upon an order of this Court dismissing the special leave petition filed summarily against the judgment of the very same High Court dated 19.07.2001 in CWP No.10201 of 2000. Learned counsel for the respondent, by inviting our attention to the judgment of the High Court in that case contended that on facts the case on hand was also similar to the case considered therein but this Court dismissed the special leave petition when the relief granted for re-instatement and back wages was contested by the authorities before this Court.
4. On a careful consideration of the matter and the materials on record, including the judgment and orders brought to our notice, we are of the view that it is well accepted that an order rejecting a special leave petition at the threshold without detailed reasons therefor does not constitute any declaration of law by this Court or constitute a binding precedent. Per contra, the decision relied upon for the appellant is one on merits and for reasons specifically recorded therefor and operates as a binding precedent as well. On going through the same, we are in respectful agreement with the view taken in 1996 (11) SCC 603 (supra). If prosecution, which ultimately resulted in acquittal of the person concerned was at the behest or by department itself, perhaps different considerations may arise. On the other hand, if as a citizen the employee or a public servant got involved in a criminal case and if after initial conviction by the trial court, he gets acquittal on appeal subsequently, the department cannot in any manner be found fault with for having kept him out of service, since the law obliges, a person convicted of an offence to be so kept out and not to be retained in service. Consequently, the reasons given in the decision relied upon, for the appellants are not only convincing but are in consonance with reasonableness as well. Though exception taken to that part of the order directing re-instatement cannot be sustained and the respondent has to be reinstated, in service, for the reason that the earlier discharge was on account of those criminal proceedings and conviction only, the appellants are well within their rights to deny back wages to the respondent for the period he was not in service. The appellants cannot be made liable to pay for the period for which they could not avail of the services of the respondent. The High Court, in our view, committed a grave error, in allowing back wages also, without adverting to all such relevant aspects and considerations. Consequently, the order of the High Court in so far as it directed payment of back wages are liable to be and is hereby set aside.
5. The respondent will be entitled to back wages from the date of acquittal and except for the purpose of denying the respondent actual payment of back wages, that period also will be counted as period of service, without any break. The re-instatement, if not already done, in terms of the order of the High Court will be done within thirty days from today.
The appeal is allowed and disposed of on the above terms.
Appeal allowed.
****************
Parallel Citations of othrer Journal :
Unin of India & Ors. v. Jaipal Singh, 2003(7) Supreme 676 : 2003(99) FLR 1049
00030