[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4098 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2934 of 2008 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY]
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the [ACT] or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? Special Civil Application No. 4098 of 2008 R B PATEL Versus PACHCHIM GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD. & ORS Special Civil Application No. 2934 of 2008 BABUBHAI ISHWARLAL PATEL Versus PACHCHIM GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD. & ORS Appearance:
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] MR AJ SHASTRI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioners MR MD PANDYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondents CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Date : 7 /01/2014 CAV COMMON JUDGEMNT 1 The common question of law arises in these two writ petitionsforthedeterminationisasunder:
"A dismissed employee, (dismissed pursuant to conviction by the competent court with regard to the offenses registeredagainsthimandparticularlynotattheinstance of employer), if reinstated on account of an order of acquittalbyappellatecourt,wouldbeautomaticallyentitled for back wages and all other consequential benefits, in absenceofanyRulesorCircularsframedorissuedbythe employerandparticularlysuchemployerisa"State"within themeaningofArticle12oftheConstitutionofIndia?"
2 Brief facts of these two writ petitions emerge from the recordareasunder:
2.1 That boththe petitioners hadjoined inthe serviceof respondentNo.4GujaratElectricityBoardondifferentdates andwere workingondifferentposts. ThepetitionerofSpecialCivilApplication No.4098 of 2008 Mr. [ENTITY] had joined in the establishment of [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] GujaratElectricityBoard(GEB)inApril,1980and wassubsequently promoteduptothepostofDeputyEngineerandthepetitionerofSpecial Civil Application No.2934 of 2008 Mr. [ENTITY] had joined in the establishmentoftheGEBinFebruary,1973andwaspromoteduptothe post of Deputy Superintendent (Accounts). Both the petitioners had retiredfromtheserviceonattainingtheageofsuperannuation.
2.2 AcomplaintcametobelodgedbyoneMr.[ENTITY] ProprietorofM/sShriramIndustriesagainstboththesepetitionersand anotheraccusedforthe offenses punishableunderthePreventionof CorruptionAct,1988.Pursuantthereto,a raidwascarriedoutbythe concerneddepartmentand,ultimately,theywerecharged forthesaid offenses.Acasewasregistered asACBCaseNo.2of1989atSessions Court,Mehsana. ThelearnedSpecialJudge,whoconductedthetrial against these accused persons, came to the conclusion that all these accusedpersonswerefoundguiltyfortheoffenseslevelledagainstthem and,therefore,theyweresentencedaccordingly.
2.3 PursuanttotheconvictionrecordedbythelearnedSpecial Judge,ashowcausenoticewasissuedbytherespondent-Boardtothe petitioners to show cause why they should not be penalized and dismissed from the service. After considering the reply of the petitioners, the Gujarat Electricity Board had passed an order [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] dismissingboththepetitionersfromtheservice.
2.4 Thepetitionersofthesetwopetitionshadpreferredappeals, beingCriminalAppealsNo.711of1991and712of1991respectively beforethisCourtandchallengedtheconvictionrecordedbytheSessions Judge.Boththecriminalappeals cametobefinallyheardintheyear 2006 and by judgment and order dated 12.12.2006 the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Court was set aside and both the petitionerswereacquittedbythiscourt.
2.5 Having receivedtheorderofacquittalfromtheappellate court i.e. from the High Court, the respondent No.1 i.e. [ENTITY] (since GEB was divided into different companiesaccordingtoitsgeographicalposition)hadpasseddifferent ordersdated20.6.2007andreinstatedboththepetitionersin service, however, they were denied back wagesand all other consequential benefits.
2.6 ThechallengeinthesetwowritpetitionsistheOrderdated 20.6.2007 passed by respondent No.1 - Gujarat Electricity Board, by whichthepetitionershavenotbeengiventhebackwagesandallother consequentialbenefitspursuanttotheirreinstatementinservice.
2.7 Pursuant to the notices issued in the petitions, the [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY]
respondentshaveappearedandfiledtheiraffidavitinreplyandopposed grant of any relief as prayed by the petitioners. Several additional affidavitsandalsoadditionalreplieshavebeenfiledbythepetitioners aswellasbytherespondents.
3 Learned Advocate Mr. [ENTITY] appearing for the petitionersinboththepetitionshasvehementlyarguedthatwhenMr. R.B.Patel(PetitionerofSCANo.4098of2008)hasbeengivenclean acquittalandMr.B.I.Patel(PetitionerofSCANo.2934of2008)has beenacquittedonbenefitofdoubt,therespondentsoughttohavegiven backwagesandallconsequentialbenefitstothepetitioners.Hewould submitthatitwasincumbentupontherespondentsauthoritiestogive theeffectoftheacquittalorderinitstrueletterandspiritandoughtto havetreatedthecaseasiftherewasnodismissalofthepetitionersfrom the service and ought to have given back wages and all other consequentialbenefitstothem.
3.1 Itwasargued thatasfarasMr.[ENTITY], sincehewasdismissedfromtheservice,hewasdeprivedoftheactual promotion from1988andthereafterotherpromotionslikeExecutive Engineer,etcwhenhisjuniors wereconsideredandpromotedtothe postofevenExecutiveEngineerduringthisperiod. Hewouldsubmit thatthepetitionersarenotatfaultatallfornotservingtherespondents [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] and,therefore,theywereentitledforbackwagesandallconsequential benefits.
3.2 Learned Advocate Mr. [ENTITY] for the petitioners relying upon the Service Regulations of the Gujarat Electricity Board and particularly relying upon [SECTION] of the said Service Regulations wouldsubmitthattheBoardhadnotfollowedtheRuleandpassedthe order of reinstatement in a mechanical way. He would submit that [SECTION]ofthesaidServiceRegulationsspecificallycastsadutyupon theofficertoconsiderthecaseofthedismissedemployeeandpassa specific order with regard to pay and allowances to be paid to such employeefortheperiodof hisabsencefromdutyetc,whetherornot thesaidperiodshallbetreatedasperiodspentonduty.Hehasalso reliedonsubrule(2)of[SECTION]ofthesaidServiceRegulationsand placingemphasisonit,hewouldsubmitthatwhenthepetitionershave beenfullyacquittedbyacompetentcourt,theywere,infact,entitled forfullpayandallowances asiftheywerenotdismissedorremoved fromtheservice.Bytakingmethroughthememoofpetitionsandthe rejoinders filed by the petitioners, he has tried to establish that the Departmenthadprejudiceagainstthesepetitionersbynottreatingthem atparwithsimilarlysituatedemployeewhohasbeengivenfullback wages and other consequential benefits after his reinstatement in service.ByrelyingupontheinstanceofMr.[ENTITY],hewouldsubmit [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] thatthe petitionersoughttohave treatedthematparwith Mr.[ENTITY], who has been given full back wages and other consequential benefitsonhisreinstatementinservice.
3.3 AnothercontentionraisedbyMr.[ENTITY],learnedAdvocate forthepetitionersisthatbreachofprincipleofnaturaljusticecommitted by the respondents by not affording any opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order dated 20.6.2007 by which back wagesandotherconsequentialbenefitshavebeenrefusedtothem.He would submit that the petitioners were required to be heard before passinganyadversaryorderwhichwouldresultintoahugefinancial losstothemfornofaultontheirpart.
3.4 InsupportofhissubmissionMr.[ENTITY],learnedAdvocate forthepetitioners,hasrelieduponnumberofjudgments. Byrelying upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [ENTITY],asreportedatAIR1984SC380, hewouldsubmitthatthepetitionersareentitledfor100%backwages andallotherconsequentialbenefits. Byrelyinguponadecisionofthe RajasthanHighCourtandconfirmedbytheHon'bleApexCourtinthe case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran [ENTITY] Limited vs. Nathu Ram, as reported at AIR 2010 SC 19, learned Advocate Mr. [ENTITY] would submitthatthefactsofthesaidcasewherein theappellant[ENTITY] [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] whichisengagedindistributingofelectricityintheStateofRajasthan liketherespondent-Boardinthepresentcase,wouldbebindingand, therefore, as held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, the present petitioners would be entitled for back wages and all other consequentialbenefits.
3.5 ByrelyingonanotherdecisionofthisCourtinthecaseof [PRECEDENT],asreportedat2000(1)GLR909, Mr.[ENTITY],learnedAdvocateforthepetitioners,wouldsubmitthatthe authorities ought to have passed the order impugned in the present petitions only after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitionersandaccordingly hewould submitthat therespondent- Board shall be directed to consider the case of the petitioners with regardtothebackwagesandallotherconsequentialbenefitstheperiod forwhichtheywereabsent.
3.6 Mr.[ENTITY],forthepetitioners,byrelying uponanotherdecisionoftheDivisionBenchofthisCourtinthecaseof RamsunderShamlalvs.Y.B.Jhalaorhissuccessor,Commissionerof Police,Ahmedabad&Ors.,asreportedat1999(1)GLH150,would submit that the petitioners are entitled for back wages and other consequential benefits since they were acquitted from the charges levelledagainstthem,forwhichtheyweredismissedfromserviceand [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] subsequentlyreinstatedbytherespondents.
3.7 Mr. [ENTITY], learned Advocate for the petitioners has also relieduponseveraldecisionsofvariousHighCourtswhereinbackwages andotherconsequentialbenefits havebeengrantedtotheemployees consequenttotheiracquittalfromthechargeslevelledagainstthemby higher courts and submitted that the present petitioners have been acquitted from the charges by this Court in Criminal Appeals and, therefore, they are entitled to get the back wages and all other consequentialbenefits.
3.8 Mr. [ENTITY], learned Advocate, for the petitioners would argue that the petitioners were prosecuted at the behest of the respondentemployersincesanctiontoprosecutethemweregrantedby therespondent-Boardand,therefore,whenanemployeeisdismissedon thegroundofconvictionandsubsequentlyreinstatedinservice,failing inprovingtheoffencelevelledagainsttheemployee,therespondent- Board is bound to reinstate such employee in service with full back wagesandallotherconsequentialbenefits. Hewouldfurthersubmit thatthestandtakenbytherespondentsthattheBoardisnotresponsible fortheir absence fromduty be discarded andboththe petitionsbe allowedandtheprayersmadethereinbegranted.
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY]
4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Mr. [ENTITY],appearingfortherespondentshasvehementlysubmittedthat thecontentionsraisedbythepetitionersandsupportedbythedecisions relieduponbythemarenotapplicableinthefactsandcircumstancesof the present case. He would submit that a proprietor of a private companylodgedacomplaintundertheprovisionsofthePreventionof [ACT] against three persons including the petitioners and pursuant to the same, the Investigating Agency after having found sufficientmaterialagainstthem,filedchargesheetbeforethecompetent court. The Sessions Court, relying on the material placed by the InvestigatingAgency,framedchargesandthereafteron completion of trial,theaccusedwerefoundguiltyforthechargeslevelledagainstthem and accordingly convicted. He would submit that the filing of a complaintisnotatallatthebehestoftherespondents andaprivate complainthasbeeninvestigated bytheconcernedAgency.Neitherthe BoardnoranyofitsOfficialsfiledanycomplaintforthewrongdoneby the petitionersbefore anycriminal court. Allthe accusedwere tried independentlywithoutanyassistancefromtheBoardand,therefore,it cannotbesaidthattherespondentBoardhadinitiatedanyaction,like filingofcriminalcomplaint, forwhichtheyweretriedandconvicted. Givingsanction,cannotbetreatedthatthetrialtookplaceatthebehest oftherespondents.
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] 4.1 Mr.[ENTITY],learnedSeniorCounsel,wouldsubmitthatthe Board has followed its own regulations and had reinstated the
petitionersinserviceanddidnotgrantanybenefitslikebackwages and other consequential benefits since none of the petitioners have workedfortheBoard.Hehadrelieduponseveraldecisionsandwould submit that in absence of no fault on the part of the employer, the principleof"noworknopay"wouldbeapplicableand,therefore, the Boardhasrightlyrefusedtogivethemanybenefitstheperiodforwhich theywereabsent.Hewouldsubmitthatthedecisionscitedbylearned Advocate forthe petitionerswouldnotbeapplicable,particularly, in absence of any specific Rule or Circular issued by the Board about dealingwiththesuspendedordismissedorremovedemployeeincaseof hisacquittalbyacompetentcourt.Hehasplacedheavyrelianceon thedecisionsoftheApexCourtinthecaseof [ENTITY], [PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT], as reported in [CASE NUMBER]; in the case of [PRECEDENT],asreportedin (2004)1SCC121;inthecaseof BaldevSinghvs.UnionofIndia& Ors.,asreportedin(2005)8SCC747;inthecaseofBanshiDhar [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] vs.StateofRajasthan&Anr.,asreportedat(2007)1SCC324andin the case of [PRECEDENT], Mr. [ENTITY] would submit that, ordinarily, an employeewouldbeentitledforsuchbackwages,if,hehadworkedon thatpostandnotinhisabsentia.
4.2 Inthealternative,Mr.[ENTITY],learnedSeniorCounselfor therespondents,arguedthatevenotherwise,thepetitionershavefailed toestablishthatduringtheperiodofdismissali.e.from1992to2007, theyhavenotbeengainfullyemployedsomewhereelseand,therefore, theywouldnotbeentitledforthebenefitsasdemandedbythem.In support of this submission, Mr. [ENTITY], learned Senior Counsel has relieduponadecisionoftheApexCourtinthecaseof AllahabadJal [ENTITY].[ENTITY],asreportedin2005IILLJ309 and inthecaseof MuirMillsUnitofNTC(UP)Ltdvs.SwayamPrakash Srivastava&Anr.,asreportedat(2007)1SCC491.Byrelyingupona decisionoftheLargerBenchoftheHon'bleApexCourtinthecaseof GeneralManager,HaryanaRoadwaysvs.[ENTITY], asreported in2005IIILLJ,52,Mr.[ENTITY]wouldsubmitthatitwasnotawrongful dismissalofthepetitionersfromtheservicebytherespondent-Board sincetheywereconvictedbytheTrialCourtafterfullfledgedtrialand, therefore, they would not be entitled for the benefits demanded by [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] them.
4.3 Mr.[ENTITY],learnedSeniorCounsel,wouldfurthersubmit thatsubrule(1)of[SECTION]oftheService RegulationsoftheBoard dealswiththesituationwheretheBoardhastoconsiderabouttheback wages,salary,etc.incaseofreinstatementofanemployeeonlywhenan employee is suspended, dismissed and/or removed from the service pursuanttoadepartmentalinquiryinitiatedattheinstanceoftheBoard itself. These provisions are not applicable in the case of the present petitioners.Mr.[ENTITY],learnedSeniorCounsel,wouldsubmitthaton closereadingofthisChapteraswellastheRegulationsframedbythe Board,itisclearthattheBoardhastopassaspeakingorderonlyincase whereanemployeehasbeendismissedorremovedand/orsuspended fromtheservicepursuanttoadepartmentalinquiry.Hewouldfurther submitthatitisnotthecaseofthepetitionersthattheirserviceswere terminatedpursuanttothedepartmentalinquiryinitiatedbytheBoard buttheyweredismissedfromtheserviceastheywereconvictedatthe endofthetrialina criminalcomplaintlodgedbyaprivatepartyand notatthebehestoftheBoard.Hewouldsubmitthatsubrule(2)of [SECTION]oftheServiceRegulationsoftheBoardwouldbeapplicable whenanemployeehasbeenfullyexonerated,whichwouldmeanthat, hehasbeenexoneratedfromthechargeslevelledagainsthimbythe department itself or in the case of suspension that it was wholly [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] unjustified,theemployeeshallbegiventhefullpayandallowanceto which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removedorsuspended,asthecasemaybe.
4.4 Mr. [ENTITY], learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, wouldsubmitthatinthecaseof JaipurVidyutVitran[ENTITY]Ltdvs. NathuRam(supra), theRajasthanHighCourtandtheHon'bleApex Court,reliedonaspecificCircularissuedbytheemployer-[ENTITY]itself, whichdealswiththebackwages,etcincaseofacquittalfromcriminal chargesbyacompetentcourt.Inthesaidcase,theRajasthanHighCourt directedtherespondent-[ENTITY]tomakepaymentofpayandallowance tothepetitioner,notlessthanwhatwouldhavebeenadmissibletohim had he remained under suspension, from the date of termination to acquittalincriminalcaseandfurtherorderedthatthesaidperiodshall betreatedasspentondutywithoutbreakinservice.Feelingaggrieved, therespondent-[ENTITY]preferred aCivilAppeal beforetheHon'ble ApexCourtwhichalsocametobedismissedsincetheApexCourthad dealt with the Circular issued by the [ENTITY]. Mr. [ENTITY], learned SeniorCounsel,furtherarguedthattheHon'bleApexCourtdidconsider thecaseofRanchhodjiChaturjiThakore(supra)andbyacceptingthe ratiolaiddowninthesaidcaseandalsoconsideringtheCircularissued bythe[ENTITY],whichdealswithsuchasituation,confirmedthedecision oftheRajasthanHighCourt.Mr.[ENTITY],learnedSeniorCounselforthe [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] respondentswouldfurthersubmitthatinthepresentcasethereisno suchcircularinexistenceoranyregulationswhichwouldbeapplicable tothefactsofthecaseofthepresentpetitioners. 4.5 Inrespecttothecontentionsraisedbythepetitionersabout not considering the petitioners at par with one Mr. [ENTITY], Mr. [ENTITY],learnedSeniorCounsel,wouldsubmitthatinthecaseofMr. [ENTITY],hewaschargesheetedbytheDepartmentandpursuanttothe Departmentalinquiry,hisservicescametobeterminated.Mr.[ENTITY], learnedSeniorCounselfortherespondentswouldsubmitthathewas fully exonerated from the charges levelled against him in the departmental inquiry and therefore his case was considered under Regulation241oftheBoardandallbenefitsweregrantedtohim.Mr. [ENTITY], learned Senior Counsel, for the respondents therefore submittedthatthefactsofthepresentcasearenotcomparablewiththe caseofMr.[ENTITY].
4.6 As far as the contention raised by the petitioners with regard to breach of natural justice is concerned, Mr. [ENTITY], learned SeniorCounselfortherespondents,wouldarguethatithasbeenheldby theHon'bleApexCourtincatenaofdecisionsthatsuchprinciplewould notbeapplicableifitisfoundthatitwouldbeafutileexerciseanditis requiredtobeestablishedthatapersonwouldbeprejudicedifheisnot [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] heardbeforepassinganyadversaryorder.Insupportofhissubmission, hehasrelieduponadecisionsoftheApexCourtinthecaseof [PRECEDENT] as well as in the case of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur vs. PunjabStateElectricityBoard&Ors.,asreportedat(2010)13SCC
216.Byrelyingonthesedecisionshewouldsubmitthateachcasehas tobedealtwithonitsownfactsandcircumstancesofthecaseandthey cannotbeputinastraitjacketformulaand,therefore,if itisafutile exerciseandthereisnoneedtoaffordanyhearingbeforepassingany adverseorderagainstsuchpersons.Placingemphasisontheaforesaid decisions,Mr.[ENTITY],learnedSeniorCounselfortherespondentswould submitthatthereisnosubstanceinthepresentpetitionsandthesame deservestobedismissed.
5 IhaveheardlearnedAdvocatesappearingfortherespective parties.Itisnotindisputethatthepetitionersweremadeaccusedalong withsomeotherpersonsinacomplaintlodgedbyoneMr.[ENTITY] ProprietorofM/sShriramIndustriessinceillegaldemandsweremade by them for carrying out certain procedure which the Board has to follow. Having found sufficient material, the petitioners were chargesheetedand,ultimately, triedbythecompetentcourtandwere convictedinthe [ENTITY],the respondentBoard haddismissedthepetitionersfromitsservicesaspertheClause7(c)of [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] theBombayStateElectricityBoardEmployeesConduct,Disciplineand AppealProcedurewhenthepetitionerswereconvictedfortheoffenses registeredattheinstanceofaprivateparty. Though,asanctionmight havebeenissuedbythehigherofficeroftheBoardforprosecutingit's employeeunderthe [ACT], itcannotbe saidthattheprosecutionwasinitiatedattheinstanceoftheBoarditself. TherewouldbesomanyinstanceswheretheBoardmayhavetofile criminalprosecutionagainstit'semployees,but,intheinstantcase,itis anadmittedfactthatneithertheBoardnoritsOfficershavetakenany initiativetolodgeacriminalcomplaintagainstthepresentpetitioners. Therefore,itcannotbesaidthatthepetitionerswhofacedprosecution andultimatelyconvictedwasattheinstanceoftheBoard.Therefore,in myopinion,inthepresentcase,thepetitionershavefacedprosecution wasnotatthebehestoftheBoard.
6 Nowdealingwiththesubmissionsaboutthebackwages,I wouldliketofirstdealwiththejudgmentcitedbylearnedAdvocateon behalfofthepetitionersinthecaseofJaipurVidyutVitran[ENTITY]Ltd vs.NathuRam(supra).Inthesaidcase,theaccusedwasanemployee ofasimilarBoardandwastriedfortheoffencesunderthePreventionof CorruptionAct,1988.Hewas,ultimately,acquittedbythe competent court.Sincetheemployeewasnotgrantedfullbackwagesatthetimeof reinstatement, he had preferred a writ petition before the Rajasthan [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] HighCourt,whichwasallowedbythelearnedSingleofthesaidHigh Court.TheemployerJaipurVidyutVitran[ENTITY]Limitedpreferredan appealbeforetheHon'bleApexCourtchallengingthedecisionofthe RajasthanHighCourt.Evenafterconsideringthedecisioninthecaseof RanchhodjiChaturjiThakore(supra), itwasheldbytheApexCourt thatsincetheemployeritselfhadissuedacircular,whichwasnotlooked intobyit,whichdealswith benefitstoanemployeewhoisacquitted fromcriminalchargesandreinstatedinservice.Bycombinedreadof [SECTION] of the [ACT]theHon'bleApexCourtfound that the employee was entitled for back wages from the date of terminationandfurtherorderedthatthesaidperiodshallbetreatedas spentonduty.TheaforesaidaspecthasbeendealtwithbytheHon'ble ApexCourtinpara9ofthedecision,whichisreproducedhereinbelow:
"9.Secondly,itwascontendedthatsincetherespondenthad notworkedduringtheperiodofdismissal,hewasnotentitled toanyremunerationfortheperiodmentionedhereinearlier.In support of this submission, the learned counsel for the Corporationhaddrawnourattentiontotwodecisionsofthis Court in the case of Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar, Gujarat and another [1996 (11) SCC 603] andUnionofIndiaandOrs.v.JaipalSingh[2004(1)SCC 121].Beforewedealwiththeaforesaidtwodecisionsasrelied onbythelearnedcounselfortheCorporation,wemayconsider [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] the Circulardated3rdofSeptember,1975,issuedbythe erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board, on which strongreliance wasplaced by thecourtsbelow,needstobe lookedinto.Itcannotbedisputedthatthesaidcircularitself wasbindingontheCorporation.Therefore,atthisstage,we mayreproducethesaidCirculardated3rdofSeptember,1975 as well as [SECTION] of the Regulations which are as follows:
"Sub : Action to be taken in cases where Board's employees are convicted on a criminal charge by a competentcourtoflaw.Thefollowingprocedureshould beadoptedinacaseofconvictionofaBoard'semployee byaCourtofLawonacriminalcharge:
(iii) If an appeal/revision against the conviction succeedsandBoard'semployeeisacquitted,theorder ofdismissal,removalorcompulsoryretirementbased on his conviction which no longer stands, becomes liabletobesetaside.Acopyofthejudgmentofthe appellateCourtshouldbeimmediatelyprocuredand gotexaminedwithaviewtodecidewhetherdespitethe acquittal,thefactsandcircumstancesofthecaseare suchastocallforthedepartmentalinquiryagainstthe Board's employee on the basis of the allegation on whichhewaspreviouslyconvicted.
Ifitisdecidedthatadepartmentalinquiryshouldbe held,formal ordersshouldbemade:
(1)settingasidetheorderofdismissal,removalor [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] compulsory retirement,and (2)orderingsuchadepartmentalinquiry.
SuchanordershouldalsostatethatunderRegulation No.9oftheRSEB(CCandA)Regulations,1962,the Board's employee is deemed to be under suspension with effect from the date of the dismissal/removal/compulsory retirement (A StandardFormIIisenclosed).
In case where neither of the aforesaid course is allowed,aformalordershouldbemadesettingaside the previous orders of dismissal, removal and compulsoryretirementandreinstatinghiminservice (A Standard Form No. III for such an order is enclosed).
Theperiodbetweenthedateofdismissaletc.andthe dateonwhichheresumesdutyshouldbedealtwith under Regulation No.41 of the Rajasthan State ElectricityBoardEmployees'ServiceRegulationsandin doingsoheshouldbedeemedtobeentitledtofullpay and allowances for the period from the date of his acquittaltothedateofhisreinstatement,suchperiod being counted for duty for all purposes and for the period from the date of dismissal to the date of acquittal,heshouldnotbeallowedpayandallowances lessthanwhatwouldhavebeenadmissibletohimhad heremainedundersuspension."
6.1 For my consideration, Regulation241 of the Service [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Regulations (Amended upto 30th November, 1983) of the Gujarat
ElectricityBoardisreproducedhereinbelow:
"241(1) WhenanemployeeoftheBoardwhohasbeen dismissed, removed or suspended, is reinstated, the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall considerandmakeaspecificorder.
(a) Regarding pay and allowances to be paid to the employee fortheperiodofhisabsencefromduty.
(b) Whetherornotthesaidperiodshallbetreatedas periodspentonduty.
(2) Wheretheauthoritymentionedinsubrule(1)isof opinionthattheemployeehasbeenfullyexoneratedorin the case suspension that it was wholly unjustified, the employee shall be given the full pay and allowance to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed,removedorsuspendedasthecasemaybe.
(3) Inothercasei.e.whenthesuspensionisnotwholly unjustifiedortheemployeehasbeenpartiallyexonerated, heshallbegivensuchproportionofpayandallowanceas thecompetentauthorityprescribebyaspecificorder.
(4) In case falling under clause (2), the period of absence fromdutyshallbetreatedasaperiodspent on dutyforallpurpose.
(i) Incasesfallinunderclause(3)theperiodofabsence fromdutyshallnotbetreatedasaperiod spentonduty unlesssuchcompetentauthorityspecificallydirectsthatit [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] shallbesotreatedforanyspecificpurposeprovidedifthe employee so desires, such authority may direct that the period ofabsencefromdutyshallbeconvertedintoleave ofanykinddueandadmissibletotheemployee.
(6) Iftheemployeeisfoundtobeguiltyorpartiallyguilty,he shallbeliabletobepunishedaccordingtothegravityofcharge againsthim.
6.2 [ENTITY],neitheritisthecaseofthe petitionersnoranymaterialwasproducedbythemwhichwouldgoto suggestthatsimilarcircularhasbeenissuedbytheBoardtodealwith thecasewhenanemployeewhohasbeenreinstatedinserviceatthe end of trial if any acquittal order is passed by a competent court. [SECTION] of the Service Regulations of the Gujarat Electricity Board would not certainly be applicable and it cannot be said that acquittalmeansexoneration.Thepersonwouldbeexoneratedfromthe chargeslevelledagainsthimonlyincaseofdepartmentalinquiryanda personwouldbeacquittedincaseofcriminalprosecution,[SECTION](2) isnotapplicable.Therefore,theprinciplelaiddownbytheApexCourtin thecaseof JaipurVidyut Vitran[ENTITY]Ltdvs.NathuRam(supra), wouldnotbeapplicable inthefactsandcircumstancesofthepresent case.
7 AnotherdecisionreliedbyMr.[ENTITY],learnedAdvocatefor thepetitionersisthedecisionofthisCourtinthecaseofM.V.Chauhan [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] vs. State of Gujarat (supra). This Court has again relied upon a specificcircular issuedbythe governmentitselfwhichwasreadwith [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The relevant paragraph5ofthesaidjudgmentisreproducedhereinbelow.
"5 Inthisconnection,itwillalsobeappositeto noticethatexpression"fullyexonerated"inthecase whereapersonisbeingtriedonacriminalcharges and is acquitted requires consideration of the natureofacquittal. Thegovernmentonitswisdom for maintaining uniformity has issued guidelines relevant for the present purpose that in what circumstancesanacquittalontechnicalgroundcanbe treated equivalent to acquittal on merit. The resolutionofthegovernmentdated2ndApril,1983, clause(5)readsthat:
"Where the acquittal by Court is on technicalgrounds,andifthegovernment doesnotpropose togoinappeal toa higher Court or to take further departmental action, action should be takeninthesamemannerasiftheofficial has been acquitted by the Court on merits."
Atleastthereisnodisputeforthepurpose ofpromotion,theacquittalinsuchevent istreatedtobe a`fullexoneration'and [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] acquittal not merely on technical grounds."
7.1 In the present case, there is no such circular has been issuedbytheBoardwhichwouldentitlethepetitionersforbackwages, etc.
8 Dealing with the submissions made by Mr. [ENTITY] with regardtobreachofprincipleofnaturaljusticeisconcerned,Iwouldlike to reproduce paras 4, 5 and 6 of the Affidavitinreply filed by respondentNo.1Boardon19.11.2011hereinbelow.
inreplyinSpl.C.A.No.4098of Paras4,5and6oftheaffidavit 2008:
"4 Prior to his retirement, by order dated 27.2.2008 in accordancewith the affidavitinrely filedby thethenPOof erstwhile GujaratElectricityBoardin SCANo.3485/88,the petitionerwasdeemedtohavebeenconsideredaspromotedas DeputyEngineer,witheffectfrom9.6.1988andonthataccount washeldeligibleforarrearsduringtheperiodfrom9.6.1988to 22.1.1992andalsoeligibleforrevisedfixationfromthedateof his reinstatementandarrearson that accountbyanother order dated 10.4.2008. Chargesheet regarding disciplinary action against the petitioner dated 29.12.2007 was re examined by the competent authority and in view of petitioner'sretirementonreachingtheageofsuperannuation, taking the lenient view was withdrawn by the competent authority.
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] 5 Thedetailsofpaymentsmadetothepetitionerregarding
retirement duesandotherarrearsareasunder:
Sr.No. Particulars Amount 1 Gratuity Rs. 1,76,955.00 2 Leaveencashmentfor171days Rs. 1,34,486.00 3 Staffvoluntaryretirementcumdeathbenefit Rs. scheme 705.00 4 CPF Rs. 5,92,170.00 5 Arrears(payrevision)1stinstallment Rs. 22,347.00 6 Fieldallowancearrears Rs. 24,184.40 7 Arrears Rs. 2,11,411.00 8 Arrears(payrevision)2ndinstallment Rs. 62,598.00 9 Arrears Rs. 31,597.00 10 Gratuitydifference Rs. 44,550.00 6 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has
sanctionedpaymentofpensionofRs.948/permonthw.e.f. 1.3.2008.Inviewoftheabove,theonlyoutstandingclaimas per the petitioner is asregardsthe back wages during the period of date of termination to the date of reinstatement including the claim for higher grade which the petitioner claimstobeentitledtoasperGSO334.
Paras3,4and5oftheaffidavitinreplyinSpl.[CASE NUMBER] [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] 2008:
3. Isayandsubmitthatthefollowingpaymentshavebeen madeupontheretirementofthepetitioner:
Sr.No. Particulars Amount 1 Gratuity Rs. 4,14,557.00 2 C.P.F. Rs. 4,90,255.00 3 Leaveencashment Rs. 1,88,892.00 4 Staff voluntary retirementcumdeath Rs. scheme 4,105.00 5 Total Rs. 10,97,809.00 4 The petitioner claims being entitled to back wages,
consequentialbenefitsandpromotionalbenefits,etc. During thependencyofthepetition,thepetitionerhasbeengranted highergradeforthepostofSuperintendentofAccountsw.e.f. 22.1.2008 and promotion to the post of Superintendent of Accountson9.3.2011."
8.1 These specific averments are not denied. However, the petitionershave claimed morethan whathasbeen awardedbythe Board.
8.2 Readingthisfactualaspectsmentionedinboththepetitions andwhentheBoardhasdroppedthechargeswhichwereinitiatedby thedepartment,however,givenbenefit ofpromotion,etc asperhis [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] entitlement. Giving opportunity of hearing before passing the reinstatementorder,inmyopinion,wouldbeafutileexercisesincethe BoardhadrelieduponseveraldecisionsoftheApexCourtwhichdeal with the principle of "no work no pay" and, therefore, it was not necessary to afford hearing to the petitioners before passing the impugnedorder.
9 Asfarasbackwagesareconcerned,inthecaseofVirender KumarG.M.NorthernRailways,(supra) theHon'bleApexCourthas made certain observations in para14 which is reproduced herein below:
"13. As regards the emoluments of higher posts with retrospective effect, we find that the High Court had categoricallydeniedthesametotherespondentsevenonthe basisoftheirclaimtohighergradesinClassIIIposts.Further, eventheentitlementoftherespondentstothehighergradesin ClassIIIpostsasperthedirectionsoftheHighCourtwason the basis ofthe quotaandrota rulewhichinitself isboth inequitableandirrational.Timeandagain,therulehasbeen criticizedonaccountoftheabsurdresulttowhichitleads,viz., thedeemedappointmentshavetobegiventotheconcerned employeesevenfromthedateswhentheywerenotinservice andprobablywhentheywerestillintheirschoolsandcolleges. WeareinformedacrosstheBarthatthisisthesituationeven withrespecttosomeoftherespondentsherein.Thequotaand rotarulehadtobeworkedoutinthepresentcasefromthe [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] year 1954 as per the direction of the High Court and the Tribunal.Thereis,therefore,neitherequitynorjusticeinfavour oftherespondentstoawardthememolumentsofthehigher postswithretrospectiveeffect.Itisforthisreasonthatweare oftheviewthatthedecisionsofthisCourtsuchasinP,[PRECEDENT] directing the payment of higher emoluments with retrospective effect on accountofthedeemedpromotionsofearlierdateswillnotbe applicable to the facts of the present case and have to be distinguished.
ItistruethattheappellantRailwayshadfailedtogivecorrect effecttothedecisiondatedJuly30,1975oftheHighCourtin L.P.A.No.220of1972,andhadkeptthematterhangingtill thisdayfornofaultoftherespondents.TheHighCourtbyits saiddecisionhaddirectedtheappellantRailwaystopreparea seniority list within three months from the date of the decision,andalsotoproceedtomakefurtherpromotionsin thehighergradesinaccordancewithlaw,rulesandordersin forcefromtimetotime.Butitisequallytruethatduringall theseyearsthehigherpostswerenotvacantandweremanned by others, and the appellantRailways had paid the incumbentsconcernedtheemolumentsofthesaidposts.The respondentshavenotactuallyworkedinthesaidpostsand, therefore,ontheprincipleof"noworknopay"theywillnotbe entitledtothehighersalary.Hence,wegivenodirectionsin thisbehalfandleaveittotheappellanttogivesuchreliefas theymaydeemfit."
9.1 [ENTITY] the [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Hon'bleApexCourtdealingwithsimilarcasemadecertainobservations inparagraph3whichisreproducedbelow:
"3 Thereinstatementofthepetitionerintotheservicehas alreadybeen orderedbytheHighCourt.Theonlyquestion is: Whether heisentitled tobackwages"? Itwas his conductofinvolvinghimselfinthecrimethatwastakeninto account for his not being in service of the respondent. Consequentuponhisacquittal,heisentitledtoreinstatement forthereasonthathisservicewasterminatedonthebasisof theconvictionbyoperationofprovisotothestatutoryrules applicabletothesituation.Thequestionofbackwageswould beconsideredonlyiftherespondentshavetakenaction by wayofdisciplinaryproceedingsandtheactionwasfoundtobe unsustainableinlawandhewasunlawfullypreventedfrom dischargingtheduties.Inthatcontext,hisconductbecomes relevant. Each case requires to be considered in his own backdrops. In this case, since the petitioner had involved himselfinacrime,though,hewaslateracquitted,hehad disabled himself from rendering the service on account of conviction and incarceration in jail. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is notentitled topayment of backwages.ThelearnedSingleJudgeandtheDivisionBench have not committed any error of law warranting interference."
9.2 In the case of [ENTITY] (supra), the petitionerhadfacedthetrialfortheoffensespunishableunderSections [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] 302readwithSection34oftheIndianPenalCode, forwhichhewas acquitted.[PRECEDENT] (supra) by relyingonthedecisionincaseofRanchhodjiChaturjiThakore(supra) itwasobservedthatwhenthedepartmentwasnotconcernedaboutthe criminalcase,theemployercannotbemadeliabletopayfortheperiod forwhich theemployercouldnotavailtheservicesoftheemployee. Paragraphs4and5ofthesaiddecisionarerelevantforthepurposeof decidingthepresentcase,whicharereproducedhereinbelow:
"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 acceptedthatanorderrejectingaspecialleavepetitionatthe thresholdwithoutdetailedreasonstherefordoesnotconstitute anydeclarationoflawbythisCourtorconstituteabinding precedent. Per contra, the decision relied upon by the appellant is one one merits and for reasons specifically recordedthereforitoperatesasabindingprecedentaswell. Ongoingthroughthesame,weareinrespectfulagreement with the view taken in Ranchhodji. If prosecution, which ultimatelyresultedinacquittalofthepersonconcernedwas atthebehestoforbythedepartmentitself,perhaps,different considerationsmayarise.Ontheotherhand,if,asacitizen, theemployeeorapublicservantgotinvolvedinacriminalcase and if after initial conviction by the trial court, he gets acquittal on appeal subsequently, the department cannot in anymannerbefoundfaultwithforhavingkepthimoutof service,sincethelawobligesapersonconvictedofanoffenceto [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] besokeptoutandnottoberetainedinservice.Consequently, the reasons given in the decision relied upon, for the appellantsarenotonlyconvincingbutareinconsonancewith reasonablenessaswell.Thoughexceptiontakentothatpartof theorderdirectingreinstatementcannotbesustainedandthe respondenthastobereinstatedinservice,forthereasonthat the earlier discharge was on account of those criminal proceedingsandconvictiononly,theappellantsarewellwithin theirrightstodenybackwagestotherespondentfortheperiod hewasnotinservice.Theappellantscannotbemadeliable topayfortheperiodforwhichtheycouldnotavail ofthe services of the respondent. The High Court, in our view, committedagraveerror,inallowingbackwagesalso,without adverting to all such relevant aspects and considerations. Consequently, the order of the High Court insofar as it directed paymentofbackwagesisliabletobeandishereby setaside.
5 Therespondentwillbeentitledtobackwagesfromthe dateofacquittal andexcept forthepurposeofdenyingthe respondentactualpaymentofbackwages,thatperiodalsowill be counted as period of service, without any break. The reinstatement,ifnotalreadydone,intermsoftheorderofthe HighCourtwillbedonewithinthirtydaysfromtoday."
9.3 TheHon'bleApexCourthasagainconsideredthesamein thecaseof Baldevsingh(supra).Theprinciplelaiddowninthesaid casegrantofbackwageswouldnotbeanautomaticresultofacquittal butitdependsuponeachcase.Again,theApexCourthasreliedupon [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] thecaseofRanchhodjiChaturjiThakore(supra). 10 Inviewoftheabovediscussionsaswellasinthebackdrop ofthepresentcase,thecommonquestionoflawformedbythisCourt at the beginning of the present judgment and order is answered as under:
"InabsenceofanyspecificRuleframedbytheInstitutionor Circular issued by it, an employee who faced criminal prosecutionnotatthebehestoftheinstitutionwouldnotbe entitled for any back wages or any other consequential benefits,theperiodforwhichhewasnotworkingwiththe employer, on his reinstatement in service on account of acquittalbyacompetentcourtinacriminalcase."
11 Intheresult,boththepetitionsdeservetoberejectedand arerejectedaccordingly.Ruleinboththepetitionsisdischarged.
([ENTITY], J.) pnnair