CW 10737/09 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.10737/2009 Prabhu Dayal Rao Versus SBBJ & Ors. Date of Order ::: 14/09/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Arvind Gupta, for petitioner Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing order dt.24/04/93 (Ann.6) whereby penalty of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect has been inflicted after holding regular inquiry; and so also order dt.06/10/07 (Ann.13) whereby his salary including allowances has been withheld for intervening period from the date of dismissal till reinstatement in service. A criminal case for commission of offences U/Ss 420, 467, 468, 379 & 120-B, IPC was instituted against petitioner while working as Record Keeper and in which he was held guilty and convicted by learned trial Magistrate vide judgment dt.15/12/06 (Ann.10). It appears from the record that apart from initiation of criminal proceedings against petitioner, independently disciplinary inquiry was initiated for misconduct for which he was held guilty by disciplinary authority and consequently was inflicted with penalty of CW 10737/09 //2// stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect. It has not been disputed by Counsel for petitioner that order of disciplinary auhtority was an appealable order but no departmental appeal was preferred against order inflicting penalty upon him. On the basis of conviction vide judgment dt.15/12/06 (Ann.10) of learned trial Magistrate, petitioner was dismissed from service by respondent-Bank vide order dt. 27/01/07 (Ann.11). However, petitioner preferred appeal against his conviction (Ann.10) and appellate court passed judgment of acquittal dt.24/08/07 (Ann.12) – as a consequence whereof, petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dt.06/10/07 (Ann.13). However, his salary including allowances has been withheld for intervening period during which he has not worked from the date of dismissal till reinstatement. Counsel submits that since disciplinary inquiry and criminal case were based on self same set of facts and material, very finding holding him guilty & penalty inflicted vide order dt.24/04/93 is arbitrary and deserve to be set aside. Counsel further submits that as regards order of dismissal from service dt.27/01/07 (Ann.11), no CW 10737/09 //3// departmental inquiry was initiated and dismissal was based only on conviction passed by learned trial Magistrate, which once was set aside by appellate Court while recording acquittal in his favour vide judgment dt. 24/08/07 (Ann.12), he was entitled for full salary alongwith pay & allowances at the time of reinstatement vide order dt.06/10/2007 (Ann.13) for intervening period and withholding whereof was arbitrary and to this extent, order (Ann.13) is required to be set aside. In support, Counsel placed reliance upon judgments in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Gold Mines Ltd (AIR 1999 SC 1416) and GM Tank Vs. State Gujarat (2006(5) SCC 446). I have considered contentions urged by Counsel for petitioner and with his assistance examined material on record. I find no substance in any of his contentions. As regards initiation of disciplinary inquiry cultiminating into infliction of penalty of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect vide order dt.24/04/93 (Ann.6) after he was held guilty of charges in an independent disciplinary inquiry which was in no way related with criminal proceedings initiated against him, against which, if at all he was aggrieved, remedy was available to file CW 10737/09 //4// appeal, which indisputably he failed to avail of. As regards, criminal proceedings initiated against petitioner, on being convicted was rightly dismissed from service, but on account of change in circumstances on being acquitted by court of appeal, he was reinstated in service vide order dt.06/10/07 (Ann.13) and if the order of dismissal from service was not unjustified at the relevant time, he was rightly denied salary & allowances for the period while he has not actually worked. However, as regards other service benefits on his acquittal, he has been made entitled for as admissible to him upon his reinstatement vide order dt.06/10/07 (Ann.13). Lastly Counsel submits that atleast he mauy be permitted to file departmental appeal against inflicting penalty in view of latter development having taken place, for which he is always at liberty to avail of remedy in accordance with law. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/ 10737CW09Spt14DE.doc