Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 24 March 2017, which allowed the original application filed by the respondent, Surendra G. Ghodake, a police constable, for payment of full salary and allowances during the period from 30 June 1999 to 26 March 2013. The respondent was dismissed from service following his conviction in a criminal case under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. He was convicted on 3 June 1999 and dismissed from service on 30 June 1999. On appeal, the Sessions Court acquitted him on 27 March 2013, and he was reinstated on 26 March 2013. The State sanctioned only 50% of pay and allowances for the period of dismissal, leading the respondent to file an original application before the Tribunal, which was allowed. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, holding that the acquittal wipes out the conviction and the basis of dismissal, and the employee is entitled to full salary for the period he was kept out of employment due to the employer's order. The court rejected the State's argument that the principle of 'no work no pay' applies, noting that the employee was willing to work but was prevented by the dismissal order. The court also interpreted Fundamental Rules 54(3) and 54(4), holding that the period of absence should be treated as duty for all purposes, and the employee is entitled to full pay and allowances. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reinstatement on Acquittal - Full Salary for Period of Dismissal - Fundamental Rules 54(3) and 54(4) - The respondent, a police constable, was dismissed following his conviction under Sections 498A and 323 IPC. Upon acquittal by the appellate court, he was reinstated. The State sanctioned only 50% of pay and allowances for the dismissal period. The Tribunal allowed full salary. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, holding that acquittal wipes out the conviction and the basis of dismissal, and the employee is entitled to full salary for the period he was kept out of employment due to the employer's order. The principle of 'no work no pay' does not apply when the employee was willing to work but was prevented by the employer's dismissal order. (Paras 1-12) B) Service Law - Fundamental Rules - Rule 54(3) and 54(4) - Interpretation - The High Court interpreted Rule 54(3) and 54(4) of the Fundamental Rules, holding that when a government servant is dismissed following conviction but is subsequently acquitted and reinstated, the period of absence should be treated as duty for all purposes, and the employee is entitled to full pay and allowances. The State's decision to grant only 50% pay was arbitrary and contrary to the rules. (Paras 8-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a government servant who is dismissed following conviction in a criminal case but subsequently acquitted is entitled to full salary and allowances for the period of dismissal, or whether the State can restrict payment to 50% of pay and allowances.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's order directing the State to pay full salary and allowances to the respondent for the period from 30 June 1999 to 26 March 2013.
Law Points
- Acquittal wipes out conviction
- Reinstatement on acquittal
- Full salary for period of dismissal
- Fundamental Rules 54(3) and 54(4)
- Principle of 'no work no pay' not applicable when employee willing to work but prevented by employer's order
