KARAMBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the order dated 4.8.2014 (Annexure P -6), whereby the petitioner has been reinstated into service on acquittal, but has been denied the consequential benefits, i.e., back wages and continuity of service. It would be necessary to give brief facts of the case.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Havaldar Instructor on 5.3.1990 and he is stated to be falsely implicated in FIR No.429 dated 18.4.2002 under Sections 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Special Judge, Faridabad, vide judgment dated 8.10.2004, convicted the petitioner after noticing that the charges against him have been proved and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -. On the basis of the conviction, vide order dated 8.10.2004 the petitioner was dismissed from service. The order of conviction was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal, i.e., Criminal Appeal No.2129 -SB of 2004. This Court, vide judgment dated 19.12.2013, acquitted the petitioner from the charges by setting -aside the judgment of conviction. In pursuance to the acquittal, the respondent authorities, vide order dated 4.8.2014 (Annexure P -6) reinstated the petitioner, however, denied him the benefit of continuity of service and back wages.

(3.) MR .Rahul Sharma -I, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the offence for which the petitioner was tried is not the gravest which the petitioner can be said to have committed in his personal capacity. He has further relied upon Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Part -I Volume -I as applicable to the State of Haryana to contend that the employee is entitled to continuity of service, full back wages and allowances in case he has been fully exonerated. He, thus, prays that the impugned order denying the benefit of back wages and continuity of service is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of his submission, the counsel has relied upon the judgments rendered in Sucha Singh Versus State of Punjab and others,2014 2 RSJ 370 and M.P.Jindal Versus State Bank of Patiala and Ors., 2013 2 SLR 251. Mr.Keshav Gupta, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana appearing on behalf of the State submits that the petitioner is not entitled to back wages as well as continuity of service on the principle of "no work no pay" and in support has relied upon Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore Versus The Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, 1996 11 SCC 603, Baldev Singh Versus Union of India and others, 2008 5 SCC 747, Union of India and Ors. Versus Jaipal Singh, 2004 1 SCC 121 and Sat Pal Dhawan Versus State Bank of Patiala and Ors., 2013 4 SCT 421.