IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.619 of 2009. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.619 of 2009. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.619 of 2009. IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.111 of 2009. WRIT PETITION NO.111 of 2009. WRIT PETITION NO.111 of 2009. The Chairman, Panvel Krushi Utpan Bazaar Samiti ..Applicant (Original Respondent No.3) versus Shri Suresh Eknath Dhumal & Others ..Respondents (Respondent No.1 Original petitioner, respondent Nos.2 & 3, Original respondent Nos.1 & 2) Mr.C.G.Gavnekar for the applicant Mr.V.P.Patil for the respondent No.1 Mr.V.S.Masurkar, AGP for respondent Nos.2 & 3 CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. R.Y.GANOO, JJ. R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED : 17th April, 2009. DATED : 17th April, 2009. DATED : 17th April, 2009. P.C. 1. This application has been moved for vacating the Order of stay passed by the Court on 23.1.2009. 2. With consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. The controversy is very short. The petitioner was facing criminal trial and was convicted by the Court of Sessions for an offence -2- under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and given life imprisonment. After he was convicted and sentenced, he was removed from services of the respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal in the High Court and the High Court reversed the conviction and the sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge and acquitted the petitioner. The State filed SLP before the Supreme Court which was refused. Thereafter the petitioner went back to its employer seeking reversal of the Order of termination, as the basis of termination was conviction which had been reversed by the High Court. The department refused. Therefore, he approached this Court. This Court passed and Order on 23.1.2009 directing reinstatement. 3. The law is well settled that even if a person accused of criminal offence gets acquitted, can be proceeded departmentally. But in this case we have not found that the department had at any time initiated any enquiry against the petitioner. He was only terminated because he was convicted by the criminal court. The conviction has been set aside, therefore the basis on which he was terminated is not available to the department. For these reasons, we allow this petition and set aside -3- the order passed by the authorities refusing to reinstate the petitioner and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner, but the respondents shall have the liberty to initiate inquiry against the petitioner if they are of the view that misconduct is attributable to the petitioner. 4. With respect to the backwages, the petitioner may make an application to the respondents who may look into it and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 5. In view of disposal of the writ petition. Civil application does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. (Bilal Nazki, J.) (Bilal Nazki, J.) (Bilal Nazki, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)