UTAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. The petitioner was initially appointed with the respondent -Department as a Class -IV Employee on 01.06.1965 and was made permanent on the aforesaid post by order dt. 24.10.1972. While the petitioner was serving with the respondents, he was arrested for an offence under Sec. 302 IPC on 18.10.1977 and was consequently placed under suspension on 22.10.1977. The petitioner was convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar and on account of such conviction, his services were terminated by order dt. 31.08.1978 w.e.f. 31.05.1978. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction was rejected by the High Court, however, on approaching Supreme Court, by Judgment dt. 25.04.2000, the conviction of the appellant under Sec. 120 -B read with Sec. 302 IPC was set aside and he was acquitted of all the charges. Whereafter, the petitioner approached the respondents for reinstatement with consequential benefits, which was apparently not exceeded to by the respondents, for which, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as the sole reason for termination of petitioner's service has been his conviction in a criminal case for an offence under Sec. 302 IPC, which conviction stands set aside by judgment of Supreme Court, the only consequence would be that the respondents have to reinstate the petitioner with consequential benefits. It was also submitted that as the petitioner has already crossed the age of superannuation, the respondents may be directed to be pay the pensionary & retiral benefits treating the petitioner in service since the date of his termination.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that though it is true that conviction of the petitioner, which formed the basis for his termination stands set aside by judgment of Supreme Court, there have been other convictions also of the petitioner for different offences. Reference thereof has been given in communication (Annex. -R/1) dt. 18.10.2002 from the Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar, wherein there is reference of conviction in two matters and one criminal matter pending against the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for being reinstated back in service.