IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 461 of 2009 Sanjay Kumar S/o Sri Shobha Ram…. Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …. Respondents. Mr. Alok Mehra, learned cousnel form the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. (Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.) Heard Sri Alok Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. By means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs- (a) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 1-9-2003, passed by respondent No.3, annexed as Annexure No.1, to the writ petition. (b) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to his post and services in the department. (c) To issue any other order or direction which this Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the present case. According to the petitioner he was serving in Police Department of Uttarakhand in the fire wing and holding the post of Fireman. When he was posted in the District Pauri Garhwal in the year 1999 a criminal 2 case under Sections 457, 380, 411 I.P.C. was lodged against him and one Ram Arun, Fire Station Officer, Pauri. During the period of investigation the petitioner was suspended on 29.4.1999 and attached to S.S.P. Office, District Almora. Thereafter charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and he was terminated from his services on 1-9-2003 by the respondent No.3 After submission of charge sheet U/Ss 380, 411 and 457 I.P.C. the trial was conducted by Judicial Magistrate, Pauri and he was convicted and sentences U/S 380 and 411 I.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate Pauri. In appeal before the learned Sessions Judge Pauri, he was acquitted vide judgment and order dated 31-8-2004 Thereafter the Government of Uttarakhand challenged the acquittal order by filing Government Appeal No. 351/2007. The petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit annexing therewith the judgment and order dated 29- 7-2010, Annexure No.1, passed by this court, by which the Government Appeal No. 315/2007, preferred by the Government against the acquittal of the petitioner has been dismissed and the acquittal of the petitioner was upheld. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of his acquittal as well as dismissal of Government Appeal filed against his acquittal, the department has not reinstated his services. Therefore, his services be reinstated in the department and salary be paid to him for the period he remained terminated. The respondents filed counter affidavit and alleged that the petitioner was convicted by Judicial Magistrate Pauri U/S 380 and 411 I.P.C. and due to his conviction his services were terminated. The petitioner did not furnish any representation and in case he is reinstated in service he would be claiming 3 salary and allowance, which would put the State Exchequer to illegal loss of money. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner by Judicial Magistrate, Pauri has been set aside by the learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment and order dated 31-8-2004, in Criminal Appeal No. 10/2002 and the appeal filed against his acquittal by the Government has also been dismissed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 29-7- 2010, therefore, the services of the petitioner are liable to be reinstated and he is also entitled to get salay from the date of his acquittal. In support of his above contention learned counsel has cited before me the case of G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat and others, reported in (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 446. I have gone through the above cited case. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that when departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings based on same set of facts, charges, evidence and witnesses are instituted against an employee and he is honourably acquitted in criminal trial during the pendency of proceedings challenging dismissal, the fining to contrary recorded in departmental proceedings in such case, is unjust, unfair and oppressive, the dismissal order is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. In the instant case the services of the petitioner were terminated by respondent No.3 on the basis of his conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Pauri U/Ss 380 and 411 I.P.C. As stated above the conviction and sentence of the petitioner has been set aside by Sessions Judge Pauri and the Government Appeal filed against his acquittal has also been dismissed by the High Court, therefore, 4 the services of the petitioner are liable to be reinstated by the department. So far as the back wages are concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cited case has further held that the relief in terms of money can be awarded only with effect from the date of acquittal. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get his back wages from the date of his acquittal by learned Sessions Judge Pauri i.e. 31-8-2004. In view of above the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 1-9-2003 passed by respondent No.3, Annexure –1 to the writ petition, is set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the services of the petitioner to his post in the department forthwith. The petitioner shall also entitled to get his back wages w.e.f. 31-8-2004. No order as to cost. Dated: 1-9-2010 ( B.S. Verma, J. ) ISB