IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4223 of 2007 CHANDRA CHUR JHA Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 02/ 09.03.2010 Heard Mr. R.C. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Railways. With consent of the parties, the matter has been taken up with a view to its final disposal at the stage of admission. The facts briefly stated is that the petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Inspector in the year 1966 in the Railway Protection Force and was sent for training on 1.5.1967. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Inspector in the year 1980. In the year 1986 the petitioner was implicated in bribery charge giving rise to a C.B.I. Case bearing R.C. No. 8/1986. Though the charge was there but the respondents did not choose to order for the suspension of the petitioner. The petitioner was convicted on 4.4.1998 and was imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment of one year with a fine of Rs. 500/-. The petitioner, however, was granted provisional bail in the matter. An appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1998 was filed on behalf of the petitioner in the Jharkhand High Court and it was admitted and the 2 petitioner was granted bail. In view of the conviction aforesaid, an order of dismissal dated 9.6.1998 came to be passed at the instance of the respondent Railways. The petitioner represented for keeping the order of dismissal in abeyance in view of the admission of his appeal and the order releasing him on bail but it was rejected by order dated 26.11.1998 placed at Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The criminal appeal resulted in acquittal of the petitioner and the order of conviction was set aside by judgment and order dated 26.4.2006. Much prior thereto the petitioner attained his age of superannuation on 31.3.2003 while the appeal was pending. In view of the order of acquittal aforesaid, the petitioner represented before the authorities by representation dated 21.12.2006 placed at Annexure-10 to the writ petition. The Chief Security Commissioner (R.P.F.), East Coast Railway, Chandrashekharpur Bhuvaneshwar, considering the representation filed on behalf of the petitioner in view of the order of acquittal and in the light of the Railway Board’s decision dated 1.5.2007 held that as a consequence of the order of acquittal by the High Court the order penalty of dismissal from service would have to be set aside and that the petitioner would be entitled for pay of the intervening period between the date of dismissal until his 3 reinstatement/retirement in service. The matter, however, was referred to the Associate Finance for taking final decision in the matter. Copy of the letter of the Chief Security Commissioner is placed at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. The matter rested at that stage in view of the pendency of the present proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the institution of the criminal case, the authorities did not choose to suspend him but they stopped his salary with effect from May, 1998 followed by dismissal on 9.6.1998. He thus submits that in view of the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case he is entitled to salary for the period May, 1998 upto his superannuation on 31.3.2003 and also entitled to entire post retiral benefits admissible to him under the Rules. A comprehensive counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Railways mentioning therein that it was in view of the pending criminal case that the matter regarding payment of his salary and post retiral dues remained pending. It was further stated that in view of the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, the decision though was taken in favour of the petitioner but was referred to the Associate Finance and in view of the filing of the writ petition it remained at that stage. The respondents opposing the claim of back wages rely upon 4 a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India Vs. Jaipal Singh referred in 2004(1) SCC 121=2004(2) P.L.J.R. (SC) 92. In so far as the claim of the petitioner for post retiral benefits is concerned, it is contended that another departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for misbehaviour and in which charge memo was issued. The petitioner had moved the Calcutta High Court in the matter and where it was pending for decision. It is contended that in the said case though the High Court had permitted the Railways to proceed with the enquiry but a restraint was put from passing a final order. It is thus stated that in view of Rules 9 and 10 of the Railways Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 the authorities are well within their jurisdiction to withhold or withdraw the pension until such time the departmental proceedings culminates in exoneration of charges. I have considered the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the materials available on record of the proceedings. It is indisputed that the criminal case initiated against the petitioner resulted in his acquittal. Thus the very basis on which the order of dismissal was passed by the respondent authorities is no more in existence. Whether or not the respondents can withhold the back wages in cases 5 having been instituted at the instance of the State and not arising out of private litigation and resulting in acquittal stands answered by the judgment rendered in the case of Jaipal Singh (supra). The Supreme Court has held that in cases where a person is facing a criminal proceeding on corruption charge instituted at the instance of the State which ultimate results in his acquittal, then the petitioner can be considered for payment of back wages by the department concerned. A perusal of the letter dated 28.5.2007 (Annexure-A) of the Chief Security Commissioner in fact shows that there is no disagreement on the issue of the payment of back wages except that the matter is pending at the level of Associate finance. Having regard to the circumstances noted above, I deem it fit to hold that the petitioner would be entitled to his back wages. In so far as the payment of retiral benefits is concerned, as there is nothing before me to disentitle the petitioner from receiving the said benefits, the same cannot be withhold by the authorities. In so far as the merit or otherwise of the departmental proceedings pending before the Calcutta High Court is concerned, the same would be considered on its own merit. However, in view of the accompanying circumstances, I hold that there are no sufficient 6 reasons for the authorities to withhold the arrears of salary and post retiral benefits of the petitioner and the same should be paid to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands allowed. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)