1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.755 OF 1997 Ishwar Shivbalappa Babladi, ] Resident of at and post ] Mangrul, Taluka – Akkalkot, ] District – Solapur. ] ..PETITIONER. Versus Zilla Parishad, Solapur through ] its Chief Executive Officer. ]..RESPONDENT. ... Mr.S.S. Patwardhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Nitin Jamdar, Advocate for the respondent. ... CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : 16th JUNE, 2009. JUDGMENT : [PER BILAL NAZKI,J.] 1. The case of the petitioner is that he was punished with punishment of compulsory retirement by order dated 18.8.1993 on the ground that he had been convicted by a Criminal Court in an offence. Thereafter, he got acquitted in Appeal being Criminal Appeal No.56 of 1993, therefore, he is entitled to be reinstated. Counter affidavit has been filed and we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is true that there was no material for compulsorily retiring the petitioner with the respondent except an order of conviction. The Department on its own had not conducted any enquiry for any alleged 2 misconduct against the petitioner, but, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has not been able to get a clear and honourable acquittal so far. Therefore, there will not be reinstatement. The learned Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, passed an order of acquitting the accused and had set-aside the judgment of conviction. The learned Sessions Judge passed an order of setting aside the judgment of conviction allowing the appeal and passed an order in following terms : “ The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences are quashed. Fine, if paid be refunded to the appellants. The matter is remanded to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate F.C., Akalkot for re-trial and proper trial as per the observations made above. The accused-appellants are directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate F.C., Akalkot on 21-11-94. The accused to continue on the same bail till the conclusion of the trial. .......” 2. The above said order leaves no room for doubt that the petitioner was acquitted, but, he had to face a re-trial. It appears that when the matter came to the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate found that the present accused could not be proceeded against in the chargesheet, therefore, it directed the police concerned to file a separate chargesheet by his order dated 10.1.1995. Two co-accused of the petitioner were, however, tried by the Magistrate and they were acquitted by an order dated 21.6.1995. These two co-accused are also employees of the respondent and they have been reinstated into the service. The case of the petitioner is that no chargesheet was filed against him till today from 1995 and in the earlier chargesheet after due trial he was acquitted. It is not his fault if no fresh chargesheet was filed against him and he cannot be treated as a convict. The learned Counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the acquittal of the petitioner is not honourable and according to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 446 3 as the acquittal is not honourable, the petitioner could not get the order of punishment reversed. We have gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court. It is of no use for the respondent because this was a judgment in altogether different context where the petitioner got acquittal and who was proceeded against departmentally as well. In that context, the Supreme Court said that though the authorities had found misconduct against the petitioner in that case but his acquittal was honourable and should be taken note of. In the present case, by no stretch of imagination, the petitioner can be treated to have been indicted by any Court or by the department itself. Therefore, this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with all consequential benefits. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner reached the age of superannuation during pendency of this proceeding. In view of this fact, we direct that the petitioner shall be given all benefits of salary etc. for the period from the date of his compulsory retirement till his actual date of superannuation. He shall also be given all the consequential retiremental benefits. 4. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. [BILAL NAZKI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]