SOHRAB HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question which falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the acquittal of the petitioner from criminal case entitles him to regularizing the period of his absence from the date of his conviction to the date of his reinstatement in service for the purpose of pay and allowances? The controversy arose on the following facts and circumstances:--

(2.) The respondent authorities contested the writ petition and filed their affidavit-in-opposition. The stance taken by them is that the petitioner got himself involved in a criminal case leading to his conviction, and the Department has nothing to do with such conviction: the Department cannot in any manner be faulted with for his plight. It is, therefore, contended by the answering respondents that the Department cannot, therefore, be held liable for payment of salaries and allowances for the period for which his services were not availed of by them: the question of payment of back wages as claimed by the petitioner does not arise.

(3.) Mr. M.U. Mahmud, the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that when the petitioner is honourably acquitted, he is entitled to full pay which he would have been entitled to had he not been discharged from service. Strong reliance is placed by him on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Assam v. R. Rajagopalachari and Vice Versa,1970 AIR(SC) 57 to fortify his submission. Per contra, Mr. R. Mazumdar, the learned standing counsel for the Education (Elementary) Department, Assam, supports the impugned decision and submits that the Department was in no way concerned with the criminal case in which the petitioner found himself involved and got incarcerated in jail, and the Department cannot, therefore, be saddled with the liability to pay back wages for the period when he was out of service during/after conviction suffered by him in the criminal case: the respondents cannot be made liable for the period for which they could not avail of the services of the petitioner. He presses into service the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Jaipal Singh, 2004 1 SCC 121 in support of his contention.