ARUN KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING an order -dated 1.3.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 30/2009, denying backwages and continuity of service to the petitioner for certain period when he remained out of service, this writ petition has been filed. Facts in brief go to show that petitioner was working as a Junior Stenographer Grade III in the office of respondent No. 3, at Jabalpur. In the year 1989, the petitioner was implicated in a criminal case for offence under section 451, 376 and 506 IPC, he was put to trial in Sessions Trial No. 99/1989 and by judgment dated 25.4.1990, the learned Sessions Judge convicted him to undergo various imprisonments, for periods ranging from two years to seven years. Due to his conviction in the criminal case, petitioner's services were terminated vide order -dated 14.9.1990. However, against his conviction petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal bearing No. 464/1990 before this Court and vide judgment dated 8.2.2005, the conviction and sentence were set aside and the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. Immediately after his acquittal on 8.2.2005, petitioner submitted an application on 21.2.2005, seeking reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits mainly on the ground that the reasons for his termination from service is no more in existence, therefore, he should be taken back in service. When the aforesaid representation was not considered, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1157, and vide order -dated 3.1.2005 the learned Tribunal disposed of the application with a direction to decide the representation of the petitioner for reinstatement within two months. When nothing was done, Contempt Petition No. 21/2006 was filed, wherein again directions were issued on 2.5.2006. However, the petitioner was reinstated in service vide order -dated 4.5.2006, but as backwages for the period the petitioner remained out of employment i.e..from 14.9.1990 till 4.5.2006 was denied and as an order was passed treating this period on the principle of 'no work no wage', and as the benefit of continuity in service for the intervening period was also denied and orders were passed rejecting the same, petitioner approached the Central -Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal having rejected the claim by the impugned order -dated 1.3.2012 - Annexure P/6, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) A perusal of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal goes to show that the Tribunal has found that the action for termination of petitioner's service was undertaken because of his involvement in the criminal" case and after placing reliance of two judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Ranchhedji Chaturji Thakore's v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board and another, : 1997 SCC (L&S) 491; and another judgment in the case of Union of India and others v. Jaipal Singh, : 2006 SCC (L&S) 121, it is held that the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit and his claim has been rejected.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents refuted the aforesaid and apart from placing reliance on the judgments as indicated hereinabove, invited out attention to another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh v. Union of India, : 2005 (8) SCC 747 to contend that once an employee is convicted in a criminal case, his conviction being not for any act attributable to the employer, no backwages or other benefits can be granted. It is emphasized that in this case two separate orders were passed: one denying backwages i.e.. Annexure A/5 dated 4.5.2006; and, another order was passed denying continuity of service. It is argued by learned counsel for the respondents that this subsequent order denying continuity of service is not challenged and, therefore, no benefit can be granted to the petitioner.