JAIPAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was enrolled in the Navy on the rank of LPM on 08.05.1987. On 04.11.1994, when he was on leave to his native village, the wife of his brother expired. Consequently, FIR No. 255 dated 04.11.1994 was registered against him and his brother under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code. On 05.03.1997, the petitioner and his brother were convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari vide his judgment dated 05.03.1997. They were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. On the basis of the conviction, by order dated 01.07.1998 the petitioner was discharged from service. In the meantime, the petitioner had filed an appeal against the conviction order, which was allowed by this court by judgment dated 03.12.1998. The Division Bench while allowing the appeal observed :-

(2.) In view of the above, it becomes apparent that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge of murder to the petitioner and his brother. It was also held that the death of the deceased was either the result of suicide or because of accidental fire. On being acquitted, the petitioner made a representation for being reinstated in service on 22.6.1999. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that reinstatement cannot be ordered in view of Regulations 118 and 119 of the Regulations of Navy Part-2. Mr. Gurpreet Singh relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. The Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) and anr., 1997 1 SCT 824 The aforesaid judgment is of two paragraphs and the same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference :-

(3.) The reinstatement of the petitioner into the service has already been ordered by the High Court. The only question is; whether he is entitled to back wages It was his conduct of involving himself in the crime that was taken into account for his not being in service of the respondent. Consequent upon his acquittal, he is entitled to reinstatement for the reason that his service was terminated on the basis of the conviction by operation of proviso to the statutory rules applicable to the situation. The question of back wages would be considered only if the respondents have taken action by way of disciplinary proceedings and the action was found to be unsustainable in law and he was unlawfully prevented from discharging the duties. In that context, his conduct becomes relevant. Each case requires to be considered in his own backdrops. In this case, since the petitioner had involved himself in a crime, though he was later acquitted, he had disabled himself from rendering the service on account of conviction and incarceration in jail. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to payment of back wages. The learned single Judge and the Division Bench have not committed any error of law warranting interference."