SOHANLAL RAJPUROHIT Vs. CHAIRMAN, RRVP NIGAM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Junior Engineer with Rajasthan State Electricity Board (predecessor of the respondent company the Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Jaipur) by order dated 22.7.1986 was placed under suspension as a consequent to initiation of investigation for a criminal charge. After filing police report and framing of charge he was subjected to a trial that culminated into his conviction for the offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The disciplinary authority by order dated 5.8.1992 dismissed him from service looking to the conduct that led to his conviction. The conviction recorded by the trial court vide judgment dated 19.6.1992 came to be set aside and the petitioner was acquitted from the charges levelled on acceptance of the appeal (SBCriminal Appeal No.254/1992) by this Court on 27.11.2008. On acquittal, the petitioner claimed for reinstatement in service but of no consequence, thus, this petition for writ was preferred to have a direction for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits including extension of an opportunity to opt for pension introduced by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board in the year 1989. During pendency of the writ petition, the Secretary (Administration) of the Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. vide order dated 28.12.2010 set aside the order dated 5.8.1992, reinstated the petitioner in service but denied payment of back wages and also for any amount beyond the subsistence allowance already paid for the period of suspension. The contents of the order dated 28.12.2010 are as under:-

(2.) The petition for writ then was suitably amended to challenge the order dated 28.12.2010 to the extent it denies payment of wages beyond the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension and the complete back wages from the date of dismissal to 31.12.2007, the day on which the petitioner would have been retired from service, if he would have not been dismissed.

(3.) The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal charges and he has been reinstated in service, then there is no justification for denying complete back wages including the wages in addition to subsistence allowance. It is asserted that the respondents at their own decided to dismiss the petitioner without waiting for final out come of the appeal against the judgment of the trial court, thus, it is not open for them to bank upon the doctrine of "no work no pay". The contention advanced is supported by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Ramswarup (DBCivil Special Appeal No.44/1983) decided on 4.3.1987. In the case aforesaid the Full Bench while examining the referred question that "whether the dismissal from service on the ground of conviction of a government servant during the pendency of his appeal against the conviction and sentence before this Court is valid even though till then the conviction of the respondent had not become final?", held as under:-