C.W.P. No. 10310 of 2000 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 10310 of 2000 Date of Decision: April 7,2010 S.C. Paul Beri through his LRs ............................................ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......................................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Present: Mr. Hittan Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. O.P.Dabla, DAG, Punjab. ... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral) The petitioner-S.C. Paul Beri has filed this writ petition wherein he has prayed that a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued for quashing the dismissal order dated 1.3.1983 (Annexure P-1) and to treat the petitioner in continuous service with the respondent department from the date he was illegally dismissed in view of the fact that he has been acquitted by the High Court vide order dated 20.9.1984 (Annexure P-2) which order has further been affirmed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 16.4.1996 (Annexure P-4). Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the Punjab Government Service in Industries Department on 22.6.1959 as Block Level Extension Officer (BLEO). In the year 1982, while working as C.W.P. No. 10310 of 2000 [ 2 ] BELO in the office of the Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Adampur, District Jalandhar, the petitioner was implicated in a case under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 161 IPC on a complaint made by one Sarda Ram wherein the allegations were that the petitioner had taken a sum of Rs.100/- as illegal gratification. In this regard, FIR No. 106 dated 18.3.1982 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Division No.4, Jalandhar. In the aforementioned case, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment dated 16.2.1983 convicted the petitioner under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and was further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 161 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. In view of the conviction of the petitioner, the Director of Industries, Punjab, (respondent No.2) dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner challenged the order of his conviction and sentence before the High Court by filing Criminal Appeal No. 107-SB of 1983 which was allowed vide judgment dated September 20,1984 and the petitioner was acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial Court was set aside. The judgment passed by the High Court was challenged by the State of Punjab by filing Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 1987 before the Supreme Court which was dismissed vide orders dated 16.4.1996. After the acquittal by the High Court as well as by the Supreme Court, the petitioner filed representations before the Departmental Authorities for reinstating him in service along with all the consequential benefits but no action was taken by respondent No.2. Thereafter, the C.W.P. No. 10310 of 2000 [ 3 ] petitioner has filed the present writ petition wherein he has prayed that he be reinstated in service and be also treated to be in continuous service with the respondent department from the date he has been dismissed. The petitioner has also prayed for all the consequential benefits like promotion, increments, back wages, pension and all other retiral benefits. It has been averred on behalf of the petitioner that as he has been acquitted by the High Court as well as by the Supreme Court of all the charges under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and his conviction and sentence under the said Section as well as under Section 161 IPC has also been set aside, therefore, he be granted the relief as prayed for in this writ petition. On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground of his conviction. Learned counsel further submits that since the petitioner has been acquitted by the High Court which order has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, therefore, the petitioner would be entitled only to claim reinstatement and is not entitled to any other relief. A perusal of the aforementioned facts clearly shows that the petitioner has been acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. In State of U.P. & Others v. Mahindra Nath Tiwari reported as 2010(1) S.C.T. 396 the Apex Court has held that an employee whose services were terminated on the ground of his conviction in a criminal case and if the said employee was acquitted in appeal, then such an employee would be entitled to reinstatement but would not be entitled to any back wages. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has expired and his legal representatives have C.W.P. No. 10310 of 2000 [ 4 ] already been brought on record. In view of the judgment in Mahindra Nath Tiwari's case (supra) the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service from the date his services were terminated. However, he would not be entitled to any back wages. As the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in service notionally, therefore, he would have also be entitled to all the consequential retiral dues. In view of the fact that he has already expired, therefore, all the retiral benefits which have accrued to the petitioner be given to his legal representatives, who have already been brought on record. All the consequential benefits and retiral dues be released to the legal representatives of the petitioner within a period of three months from today. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. 7.4.2010 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) Rupi JUDGE