SANTOSH MANIKRAO JOSHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dtd. 12/1/2018, by which the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur has strangely advised the petitioner to approach the High Court and obtain orders from the High Court and has declined to entertain his request for reinstatement, post acquittal.

(2.) I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides. Learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the matter of Union Territory, Chandigar Administration Vs. Pradip Kumar and another [(2018) 1 SCC 797], to contend that as this petitioner is not honourably acquitted, he cannot claim reinstatement in service, though his termination was by virtue of his conviction by the Criminal Court vide judgment dtd. 2/7/2013.

(3.) This petitioner had earlier approached this Court by preferring Writ Petition No. 1415 of 2014, contending that his Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2013 was pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the substantive sentence was suspended. This Court, by order dtd. 1/8/2015, disposed off the Writ Petition by recording that in Service Jurisprudence, if an employee is dismissed from service, on account of a conviction, he can claim reinstatement only after being acquitted by the superior Court. The sentence awarded to the petitioner was suspended by the appellate court and the conviction was not stayed. Even if the conviction would have been stayed, in service jurisprudence there would not have been automatic reinstatement in service.