Case Note & Summary
The Union of India filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 9 August 2018 in Original Application No. 787/2010, which directed payment of arrears of salary to the Respondent, Balakrishnan Thiruvengadam Mudaliar, for the period between his compulsory retirement and reinstatement. The Respondent was a Driver in the Central Excise Commissionerate, Mumbai, appointed on 30 March 1989. In June 2003, he was involved in an alleged bribery incident where he counted money handed over by one A.K. Pasha to Cashier S.A. Keer, which was then given to Clerk M.S. Kamble. The Anti-Corruption Bureau laid a trap and arrested Keer, Kamble, and the Respondent. The Respondent was deemed suspended from 5 June 2003, which was revoked in April 2004. He was convicted by the Special Judge, CBI, and compulsorily retired from service on 31 March 2005. On appeal, the Bombay High Court acquitted him on 9 October 2009. Consequently, the Respondent was reinstated on 1 July 2010. He then filed an application before the CAT seeking arrears of salary from the date of compulsory retirement to reinstatement. The CAT allowed the application, directing payment of arrears. The Union of India challenged this order, arguing that the Respondent was not entitled to back wages as he was not fully exonerated and that the discretion under Fundamental Rules permitted denial. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Respondent was fully exonerated by the acquittal, and the Petitioners failed to exercise discretion or show any justification for denying back wages. The Court upheld the CAT order, directing payment of arrears of salary for the intervening period.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Back Wages - Acquittal in Criminal Case - Reinstatement - Arrears of Salary - The Respondent, a driver compulsorily retired after conviction, was reinstated upon acquittal by appellate court. The Tribunal directed payment of arrears of salary for the intervening period. The High Court upheld the direction, holding that there was no justification to deny full back wages as the Respondent was not at fault and the Petitioners did not exercise discretion under Fundamental Rules to deny wages. (Paras 2-16) B) Service Law - Compulsory Retirement - Conviction - Acquittal - Reinstatement - The Respondent was convicted by trial court and compulsorily retired. On appeal, he was acquitted and reinstated. The issue of back wages arose. The Court held that the normal rule is that upon acquittal, the employee is entitled to full back wages unless there are exceptional circumstances. (Paras 3-15) C) Service Law - Fundamental Rules - Rule 54 - Back Wages - The Court interpreted Rule 54 of Fundamental Rules, holding that the authority has discretion to deny back wages only if the employee is not fully exonerated or if the suspension is justified. Here, the Respondent was fully exonerated by acquittal, and the Petitioners failed to show any justification for denying wages. (Paras 10-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Respondent is entitled to arrears of salary for the period between compulsory retirement and reinstatement after acquittal in criminal proceedings.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the CAT order directing payment of arrears of salary to the Respondent for the period between compulsory retirement and reinstatement.
Law Points
- Back wages upon acquittal
- No-fault principle
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Criminal prosecution
- Compulsory retirement
- Reinstatement
- Arrears of salary
- Central Civil Services (Classification
- Control and Appeal) Rules
- 1965
- Fundamental Rules
