RAMESH KUMAR Vs. PUNJAB SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a Sweeper working in the Punjab School Education Board (for short 'the Board'). FIR No.181 dated 20th May, 2001 was registered in Police Station Sector 11, Chandigarh, against him and other co-accused inter alia under Section 302 IPC. He was taken into police custody and judicial custody and faced criminal trial. The Board suspended him from service on account of registration of FIR and arrest. As per rules of the Board, the petitioner was entitled to subsistence allowance. His application was allowed on 9th December, 2002 and he remained on subsistence allowance till his conviction. He was convicted by the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment of conviction dated 14th July, 2006 and sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- vide order of sentence dated 15th July, 2006. The subsistence allowance was stopped on 5th April, 2007 on learning of his conviction and sentence. In view of the pending criminal proceedings, the Board dismissed the petitioner from service on 6th September, 2007.

(2.) The petitioner appealed against his conviction to this Court in CRA No.533-DB of 2006. His appeal was accepted on 14th November, 2013. He was acquitted of the charges framed against him. The order has attained finality. Armed with his acquittal, the petitioner approached the Board for reinstatement and consequential benefits. His requests and representations found no response from the Board, which ultimately led him to prefer this writ petition claiming reinstatement, back-wages and arrears of difference between pay and subsistence allowance for the period it was disbursed. The dismissal was conviction based and quite obviously not on the conduct which led to the conviction. Apparently so, since he had not committed any misconduct in the Board nor could the charge of murder ever constitute foundation of a departmental proceeding for misconduct. The reason became non-existent, when he was acquitted by this Court and found innocent of the charge of murder etc. When the solitary operating reason for dismissal ceases to exist, in a case of present kind, reinstatement should follow as a natural consequence as the sub-stratum of the penalty order stands obliterated. There may be cases where the right to reinstatement would not automatically follow such as when the criminal court acquits by giving the benefit of doubt and precedents on the point need not be discussed here since the acquittal was on failure of the prosecution to bring home the charge and was in every respect an honourable one.

(3.) However, reinstatement would not give an automatic right to back-wages since the Board was not at fault in dismissing the petitioner on the basis of conviction recorded by a criminal court. For the future it depended on the final outcome of the appeal. The Board had no occasion to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner since the criminal charge had nothing to do with the employment. The rules of the Board provided for such action. If the petitioner embroiled himself in trouble which had nothing to do with Board as it was at fault, then the Board is not liable to pay salary for work not performed or earned. There is ample authority on the proposition of law in judicial precedents including the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore vs. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat), 1996 11 SCC 603; Union of India vs. Jaipal Singh, 2004 1 SCC 121; Banshi Dhar vs. State of Rajasthan, 2007 1 SCC 324 and SBI vs. Mohd Abdul Rahim, 2013 11 SCC 67.