Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered a special leave petition filed by a dismissed employee of the Gujarat Electricity Board, who had been convicted for murder and later acquitted. The petitioner had worked as a Junior Clerk in the respondent Electricity Board. He was charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for an offence committed on October 1, 1986. The Sessions Judge convicted him and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. On the basis of that conviction, the respondent dismissed him from service. He challenged the validity of the dismissal by way of a special civil application under Article 226 of the Constitution. While the writ petition was pending, the Division Bench of the High Court acquitted him of the offence by judgment dated October 14, 1992. Consequently, while disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge directed the respondent to reinstate him into service with continuity of 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. Hence, the special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The only question for consideration was whether the petitioner was entitled to back wages after his acquittal and reinstatement. The legal issue was whether an employee dismissed from service on the basis of a criminal conviction, who is later acquitted, is automatically entitled to back wages for the period he was out of service. The Court also considered the effect of the proviso to the statutory rules under which the service was terminated. The petitioner contended that upon acquittal the basis of dismissal disappeared, and he should be granted full consequential benefits including back wages. The respondent's position, as reflected in the judgment, was that the petitioner's own involvement in the crime and incarceration prevented him from rendering service, so back wages should be denied. The Supreme Court held that reinstatement on acquittal was proper because the termination was based on conviction by operation of the proviso to the applicable statutory rules. However, the question of back wages would arise only if the respondents had taken disciplinary proceedings and the action was found to be unsustainable in law, thereby unlawfully preventing the employee from discharging duties. The Court emphasized that each case must be considered on its own facts. In the present case, the petitioner had involved himself in a crime; although later acquitted, he had disabled himself from rendering service on account of conviction and incarceration in jail. Therefore, he was not entitled to back wages. The Court found no error of law in the orders of the Single Judge and the Division Bench. The Supreme Court, after condoning the delay, dismissed the special leave petition, upholding the denial of back wages. The petitioner was not entitled to payment of back wages.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Back Wages on Reinstatement After Acquittal - Denial of Back Wages When Employee's Own Conduct and Incarceration Prevented Service - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 34; Constitution of India, Article 226 - Employee was dismissed from service following conviction under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and life imprisonment; after acquittal by High Court, he was ordered reinstated with continuity but denied back wages, and the Supreme Court upheld the denial. The Court held that back wages are not automatically payable upon acquittal; the employee's conduct in involving himself in a crime and consequent incarceration disabled him from rendering service, so he was not entitled to back wages, and each case must be considered on its own facts (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, who was dismissed from service following conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and later acquitted, is entitled to back wages for the period he was out of service after reinstatement with continuity of service.
Final Decision
Special leave petition dismissed after condoning delay; petitioner not entitled to back wages; High Court orders upheld.
Law Points
- An employee dismissed from service on the basis of a criminal conviction is entitled to reinstatement upon acquittal if termination was by operation of the proviso to statutory rules
- but back wages are not automatic
- back wages are considered only if disciplinary action was found unsustainable and employee was unlawfully prevented from working
- employee's own conduct in involving in crime and incarceration disentitles him to back wages despite acquittal
- each case must be considered on its own facts
