Chaturji Thakore Vs. The Superintendent Engineer, Gujaratel Ectricity Board, Himm
 INSC 1341 (28
O R D
case does not warrant interference for the reason that, admittedly, the
petitioner was charged for an offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC for
his involvement in a crime committed on October 1, 1986. The Sessions Judge had convicted
the petitioner under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo
imprisonment for life. On that basic the respondents had taken action to have
him dismissed from service since he was working as Junior Clerk in the
respondent-Electricity Board. The petitioner challenged the validity of the
dismissal order by way of a special civil application filed under Article 226
of the Constitution.
disposal, the Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated October 14,1992 acquitted him of the offence.
Consequently, while disposing of the writ petition, the learned single judge
directed the respondent to reinstate him into the service with continuity of
the service, but denied back wages. The petitioner then filed letters Patent
Appeal No.319/93 which was dismissed by the impugned order dated August 26,1993. Thus, this special leave petition.
reinstatement of the petitioner into the service has already been ordered by
the High Court. The only question is: whether he is entitled to back wages? It
was his conduct of involving himself in the crime that was taken into account
for his not being in service of the respondent.
upon his acquittal, he is entitled to reinstatement for the reason that his
service was terminated on the basic of the conviction by operation of proviso
to the statutory rules applicable the situation. The question of back wages
would be considered only if the respondents have taken action by way of
disciplinary proceeding and the action was found to be unsustainable in law and
he was unlawfully prevented from discharging the duties. In that context, his
conduct becomes relevant, Each case requires to be considered in his own
backdrops. In this case, since the petitioner had involved himself in a crime,
though he was later acquitted, he had disabled himself from rendering the service
on account of conviction and incarceration in jail.
these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to payment of back wages.
The learned single judge and the Division Bench have not committed any error of
law warranting interference.
leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
Pages: 1 2