1. Heard Ms. Navita Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anant Tewari, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of removal from service dated 14.6.2010 and order dated 19.12.2020, whereby request for reinstatement in service has been turned down. It has further been prayed for issuance of necessary direction for reinstatement of petitioner in service and to pay arrears of salary as well as other consequential benefits to him with interest.
3. Brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was initially appointed as daily wager on the post of Messenger. The service of the petitioner was regularized in the year 1987. He was continuously discharging his duties on the post of Messenger. In the meantime, an incident took place in the family of the petitioner that the wife of his younger brother died and an F.I.R. under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against him. The trial court convicted the petitioner and other family members, against which Criminal Appeal No.254 of 2010 was filed which was allowed and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence was set aside vide judgment and order dated 20.12.2019.
4. On the basis of order of conviction, without holding disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, he was removed from service. After setting aside the order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner moved an application on 29.2.2020 requesting therein that he should be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. The application of the petitioner has been rejected vide impugned order dated 19.12.2020.
5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner has been acquitted in the matter on merit, he is entitled for reinstatement in service. The order impugned has been passed only on the basis that against the petitioner an F.I.R. was lodged and he was convicted in the matter. She submits that on the basis of said F.I.R., no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The only basis of removal was that an F.I.R. has been lodged under the aforesaid sections, thus, the submission is that in absence of any disciplinary proceeding after acquittal in the matter on merit, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in service and for the payment of salary.
6. Her next submission is that the respondent while passing the order dated 19.12.2020 has committed manifest error of law and without considering the claim setup by the petitioner, has rejected his claim, thus, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that once the petitioner has been acquitted in a criminal case on merit, he is entitled for reinstatement, but is not entitled for the payment of salary, for the period, he has not discharged his duties.
8. On a pointed query made to the learned counsel for the respondents that whether he has received instruction in this regard, he has made statement before this Court that he is making his submission on the basis of instruction received from the respondent-Bank. He next submits that in case by setting aside the order of rejection, direction is issued to the respondent No.2 for reconsideration of the matter, claim setup by the petitioner shall be considered and fresh order shall be passed.
9. His last submission is that in view of settled proposition of law, the petitioner has not discharged his duties for the period he was in jail, therefore, he is not entitled for the payment of salary for that period. In case he moves an application before the competent authority, the same shall be considered and appropriate order shall also be passed in this regard.
10. I have considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
11. On perusal of the record, it is evident that on the basis of F.I.R. lodged due to death of the wife of younger brother of the petitioner, criminal proceeding was initiated against him and he was sent to jail. Thereafter, he was convicted in the criminal case vide judgment and order dated 1.2.2010, against which he filed Criminal Appeal No.254 of 2010, which was allowed on merit vide judgment and order dated 20.12.2019 by this Court.
12. It is also reflected that only on the basis of F.I.R. and order of conviction, the petitioner was removed from service and no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. Now the order of conviction and sentence has been set aside, thus, the petitioner is claiming for reinstatement in service and for payment of salary for the period he was in jail. The submission in regard to the reinstatement in service appears to be justified as no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The only basis of removal was lodging of F.I.R. against him and order of conviction passed therein.
13. In view of submission advanced by learned counsel for the respondents, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending before this Court.
14. Accordingly, the order dated 19.12.2020 is hereby set aside and the writ petition is partly allowed with the direction to the respondent No.2 to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate order within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
15. However, it is clarified that in regard to the payment of back-wages, the petitioner shall file a fresh application within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order and the respondent No.2 shall also consider and pass appropriate order within the aforesaid period.
Order Date :- 27.1.2021 Gautam