1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4633/2008 Suraj Mal Jaipal Vs State Bank of Bikaner & Ors. Date of Order 17.2.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. MR Singhvi, for the petitioner. Mr.PK Lohra, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was dismissed from the service only because of the reason that petitioner was convicted in a criminal case under Section 302 IPC vide judgment dated 2.8.1983. No departmental inquiry was conducted by the respondents against the petitioner and as stated above, he was dismissed from service only because of his conviction dated 2.8.1983. The petitioner's appeal against the conviction i.e., DB Cr. Appeal no.303/1983 was allowed on 5th Sept., 2007 (Annex.7) and petitioner was acquitted from the charge referred above. The petitioner's contention is that the very cause on the basis of which, the petitioner's service was terminated itself has fallen to the ground and, therefore, the order of termination of service of the petitioner (Annex.3) deserves to be set aside and in fact, that order should have been withdrawn by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute this fact that no departmental inquiry was held for taking any disciplinary action against the petitioner and he was 2 dismissed from service only because of the reason that petitioner was convicted vide judgment and order dated 2.8.1983. However, this fact is also clear from the Annex.3 itself. Learned counsel for the respondents in that situation submitted that even if the order dated 22.8.1983 dismissing the petitioner from service (Annex.3) is set aside even then the petitioner is not entitled to any back wages because of the reason that prosecution was not lodged by the respondents and, therefore, the prayer of the back wages may be denied. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. From Annex.3 it is clear that petitioner was dismissed from bank services w.e.f. 2.8.1983 i.e., from the date of the conviction of the petitioner. It is admitted case that petitioner has not been punished in departmental inquiry because of any of the misconduct and he has been straightway dismissed from service because of his conviction only. That conviction has been set aside by the judgment of this court dated 5th Sept., 2007 delivered by the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the very basis for the order dated 22.8.1983 has come to an end with the acquittal of the petitioner on 5th Sept., 2007. The order of dismissal of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. However, since the prosecution was not lodged by the respondents-employer, 3 therefore, the respondents-employer cannot be held guilty for preventing the petitioner from discharging his duties and, therefore, the respondents cannot be burdened with the back wages of the petitioner from 2.8.1983 to 5th Sept., 2007, the date on which, the petitioner was acquitted by the Division Bench of this Court in a criminal case. In view of the above reasons, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 22.8.1983 (Annex.3) dismissing the petitioner from bank service is set aside. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages from 2.8.1983 to 5th Sept., 2007. The petitioner shall be entitled to other notional benefits and continuity of service as well as other monitory benefits, which can be granted as per the rules of the respondents. The petitioner's claim for promotion may also be considered by the respondents and if found eligible only then the petitioner can be granted that promotion. It is made clear that petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation before acquittal, therefore, the petitioner shall not be entitled to seeking reinstatment now. The respondents are directed to complete the process within a period of 4 months from today as according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is cancer patient. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. cpgoyal/-