C.W.P. No.18829 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.18829 of 2010 Date of Decision.18.11.2011 Shanti Sarup Sharma .....Petitioner Versus Union of India and another .....Respondents Present: Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Advocate and Mr. Karanvir Singh, Advocate and Mr. Som Dutt Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. P.K. Dutt, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition seeks for a direction for reinstatement on the ground that the termination of services was purely on account of conviction in a criminal case and the termination had no bearing to any other proceedings, as a matter of fact the show cause notice which was issued on 23.12.1999 specifically stated that no departmental action was contemplated and that the conviction itself was good enough ground for termination of his services. Show cause notice also states that the bank would be at liberty to take appropriate departmental proceedings which were presently in progress on the charge sheet dated 12.11.1996. As of date there is no ground to allow for the termination to continue C.W.P. No.18829 of 2010 -2- especially when conviction in the criminal case on the basis of which the termination was made has been modified. 2. On the issue of entitlement to the back wages and consequential benefits, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on the judgment of Shashi Kumar Vs. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another 2005(1) SCT 576 that a person whose services were terminated on the basis of conviction of criminal charge would be entitled to reinstatement on acquittal by the Appellate Court and if the removal was only on the basis of conviction without considering any material or circumstances, the employee would be entitled to reinstatement with consequential benefits and full wages. This contention by learned counsel for the petitioner is countered by the respondent pointing out to the fact that the petitioner had been proceeded with in a Criminal Court not at the instance of any complaint by the respondent-Management but the Vigilance Department, which laid a trap for offence under Prevention of Corruption Act and caught red handed. He was proceeded to Criminal Court but ultimately the case resulted in acquittal. The Management has itself no part to play in the complaint and therefore, during all the period when the petitioner had not been in service, he could not be granted back wages. Learned counsel relies on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mahindra Nath Tiwari 2010(2) SCC 252 for the position that employee on acquittal shall not be given back wages also. This point was most squarely dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurnam Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1988) 57 PLR 196, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the issue of whether the employee on acquittal could be given C.W.P. No.18829 of 2010 -3- back wages, would depend on the facts of the particular case and an acquittal shall not at all times be taken as a circumstance for claiming back wages also. In Bardhi Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan (2007) 1 SCC 324, the Hon’ble Supreme Court again held that payment of back wages shall always not automatic when there is acquittal of the criminal case. Even the principle of no work no pay is not universal and it surely admits of exceptions between the two extremes that are possible in any given situation namely of entitlement to back wages in all cases where there is acquittal of the criminal case by the Criminal Court and the other extreme that there shall be no pay for the period when a person did not work. The court has to always look for the circumstances under which the person was denied the employment. I would see in this occasion that the respondent itself was not in any way responsible for getting him away from work if there had been an arrest and criminal prosecution for prevention of corruption and if the Rules provided for dismissal for arrest or conviction in a criminal case under Prevention of Corruption Act as resulting in termination of services, the respondents were justified at that time in terminating the service. Again if the termination itself was only on account of the pendency of the criminal case and there was no independent departmental proceeding, the acquittal could necessarily result in reinstatement what has been ordered above. If there is no entitlement for the petitioner to claim backwages as an automatic event and the situation would admit of the Court’s appropriate discretion in the given circumstances, I would hold this situation to be one where the petitioner could be allowed for notional wages with all increments from the time of termination of C.W.P. No.18829 of 2010 -4- service till date of reinstatement and shall also count for continuity of service for consideration of all future prospect of promotion or terminal benefits. The petitioner shall not, however, be entitled to any back wages during the period when she was not in service i.e. from the date of termination till date of reinstatement. 3. The first show cause notice itself shows that the department was not contemplating to take any independent departmental proceedings. At this length of time, which is more than a decade from the time when the proceedings were started, it shall not be appropriate to allow for the liberty to the management to initiate departmental proceedings. 4. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 18, 2011 Pankaj*/archana