RAM PRASAD NAYAK Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dtd. 5/2/2021 (Annexure P-1) (in the relief clause wrongly mentioned as 5/2/2019) by which the respondent/ CSPDCL declined to grant back-wages to the petitioner.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, as projected in the writ petition, is that the petitioner was initially appointed in the Electricity board in the year 1977. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Supervisor (Civil) in the year 1995. According, to the petitioner one Manshukh Lal made a complaint to the Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur against the Additional Superintendent Engineer and the petitioner in respect of illegal demand of bribe and in the said proceeding, the FIR was registered for offence under Ss. 7, 13 (1) (d), 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On account of registration of FIR, the petitioner has been placed under suspension by order dtd. 12/10/2007. Since the trial could not be concluded within a period of 3 years the suspension period has been revoked by order dtd. 4/9/2010. In the meantime, after completion of trial, the petitioner has been convicted by the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Raipur, C.G. The said conviction has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Cr. A. No. 1153/2012. Owing to conviction imposed by the Trial Court, the petitioner has been terminated from the services by order dtd. 1/4/2013. The Cr. A No. 1153/2012 has been allowed by this court vide judgment dtd. 8/5/2020 and the petitioner has been acquitted from the charges. In the meanwhile, the petitioner retried from service on 31/8/2018. Thus, after acquittal the petitioner made several representations before the authorities seeking back-wages. However, by the order impugned the representation of the petitioner has been rejected and petitioner was declined to grant back-wages. Hence this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is entitled for back-wages by virtue of Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the writ petition deserves to be allowed. He further placed reliance on Arun Kumar Sharma Vs. State of C.G.( WPS NO. 3904 of 2020) and Abdul Rahman Ahmed Vs. State of C.G. (WPS No. 3899 of 2006) passed by co-ordinate bench of this court.