Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Hareshwar Hiraji Patil, was an employee of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC). He was convicted in Special Case No.1 of 1987 by the Special Judge, Thane, under Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for giving a bribe of Rs.400 to his officer. He filed an appeal against the conviction, which was admitted. During the pendency of the appeal, the Divisional Controller of MSRTC issued a show cause notice dated 31.07.1991 asking why his services should not be terminated. Despite the petitioner's reply, the Divisional Controller passed an order of dismissal. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal, but the High Court disposed of it with liberty to approach again if the criminal appeal was allowed. On 24.08.1995, the High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Deputy General Manager of MSRTC, who partly allowed it, permitting the petitioner to join service but directing that the period of absence be treated as 'Special Leave without Pay'. The petitioner challenged this order in the present writ petition, seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. The court noted that none appeared for either party but perused the petition. The court observed that the interim order had directed the respondent to deposit 80% of provident fund, gratuity, and other retirement dues and pay 20% to the heirs. The court held that since the conviction was the sole basis for the dismissal and the conviction was set aside, the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. The court allowed the petition and directed the respondent to pay the entire back wages and treat the period as continuous service.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reinstatement - Back Wages - Acquittal in Criminal Appeal - Petitioner was dismissed from service following conviction under Section 165-A IPC for bribery; conviction was later set aside by High Court in appeal - Respondent reinstated petitioner but treated absence period as 'Special Leave without Pay' - Court held that since conviction was the sole basis for dismissal and that conviction was quashed, the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages for the period of absence (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages after his criminal conviction was set aside on appeal, despite the respondent treating the absence period as 'Special Leave without Pay'.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and pay the entire back wages for the period of absence. The interim order regarding deposit of 80% of provident fund, gratuity, and other retirement dues was also confirmed.
Law Points
- Reinstatement with continuity of service
- back wages for period of absence
- acquittal in criminal appeal
- termination based on conviction set aside
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (06) 32
WRIT PETITION NO. 4502 OF 1997
V.M. KANADE, K.R. SHRIRAM
Hareshwar Hiraji Patil (since deceased by his heirs and legal representatives: Heena Hareshwar Patil, Miss. Survi Hareshwar Patil, Master Sourabh Hareshwar Patil)
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Deputy General Manager of MSRTC treating the period of absence as 'Special Leave without Pay' after the petitioner's criminal conviction was set aside.
Remedy Sought
Reinstatement with continuity of service and payment of entire back wages for the period of absence.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was dismissed from service after being convicted under Section 165-A IPC for bribery. The conviction was later set aside by the High Court on appeal. The respondent reinstated him but treated the absence period as 'Special Leave without Pay', which the petitioner challenged.
Previous Decisions
The petitioner was convicted in Special Case No.1 of 1987 by the Special Judge, Thane. The appeal against conviction was allowed by the High Court on 24.08.1995. The Deputy General Manager partly allowed the departmental appeal, permitting reinstatement but treating absence as 'Special Leave without Pay'.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages after his criminal conviction was set aside on appeal.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner contended that since the conviction was set aside, the dismissal based on that conviction should be nullified, and he should be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages.
Ratio Decidendi
When an employee is dismissed from service solely on the basis of a criminal conviction, and that conviction is subsequently set aside on appeal, the dismissal becomes unsustainable. The employee is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages for the period of absence, as the basis for the termination no longer exists.
Judgment Excerpts
None appears on behalf of the Petitioners. We have perused the Petition.
The Petitioner was convicted for giving bribe of Rs.400/- to his Officer in Special Case No.1 of 1987 by the Special Judge, Thane under Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
On 24.08.1995, this Court was pleased to allow the Criminal Appeal and the order of conviction and sentence was set aside.
Procedural History
The petitioner was convicted in Special Case No.1 of 1987 under Section 165-A IPC. He filed an appeal which was admitted. During the appeal, the respondent issued a show cause notice and dismissed him. The petitioner filed a writ petition which was disposed of with liberty to approach again if the criminal appeal was allowed. The criminal appeal was allowed on 24.08.1995, setting aside the conviction. The petitioner then filed a departmental appeal before the Deputy General Manager, who partly allowed it, reinstating him but treating the absence as 'Special Leave without Pay'. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 165-A
