BOARD OF SECRETARY EDUCATION Vs. CHANDRAPAL SINGH PUNDIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed in this appeal shall also govern disposal of connected Writ Appeal No. 689/2012 (Chandrapal Singh v.Board of Secondary Education and another), which has been filed by respondent/employee assailing that part of the impugned order by which back wages have not been directed to be paid.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal lie in a narrow compass. Admittedly, the writ petitioner/respondent was serving on the post of Input Output Assistant in the office of appellants. The respondent was tried for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 472/34 of IPC. However, learned JMFC in criminal original case No. 2690/1998 decided on 12th September, 2002 acquitted the respondent. There is nothing on record that this order was ever set aside by any higher Court. After the acquittal from the criminal Court, the respondent/employee submitted necessary application before the employer on 8.10.2002 along with copy of the judgment that he is acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case and therefore he be permitted to join the duties. However, the employer/appellant took the respondent back in service on 30.1.2003. All these facts have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. By placing reliance upon a decision of Supreme Court in Krishnakant Raghunath Bibhavnekar v. State of Maharashtra and others, 1997 3 SCC 636, it has been contended by Shri Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant/employer that where an acquittal order has been passed on the basis of insufficient evidence and the suspension period treated to be a suspension pending the trial, even after acquittal, the employee if reinstated in service, would not be entitled to the consequential benefits. However, Shri Dudawat, learned counsel for the respondent argued in support of the impugned order.