IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.3841 OF 2016 (S-DIS) BETWEEN:
S. ARMUGAM AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, SON OF LATE SUBBANNA, TAX INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF ARO, J.C. NAGARA, BBMP OFFICE, WARD NO.33, MUNIREDDYPALYA, BENGALURU-560 006, RESIDING AT NO.280, 15TH MAIN, CORPORATION QUARTERS, NEW BENGALURU LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 084. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI T. P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N. R. SQUARE, J.C. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI KEMPANNA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.07.2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.31888 OF 2014 ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE DENIAL OF BACK WAGES FROM 02.07.2014 TILL THE DATE OF RE-IN-STATEMENT IS CONCERNED AND GRANT RELIEF OF BACK WAGES FROM THE DATE OF DISMISSAL TILL THE DATE OF RE-IN-STATEMENT.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant was working as a Tax Inspector with the respondent–Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Commissioner. A case was registered against him by the Lokayukta for the offence punishable under Section– 13(1)(d) read with Section-13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was convicted for the offence punishable under Section-7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year apart from fine.
2. The appellant challenged the said order in Criminal Appeal No.670 of 2011 before the High Court Of Karnataka. By the order dated 29.04.2015, he was acquitted. In the interregnum, in view of his conviction in the criminal court, he was dismissed from service. On his acquittal before the High Court, he filed the instant petition, wherein by the order dated 19.07.2016, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits including continuity of service. However, the appellant was held not entitled for backwages for the period effective from 02.07.2014 till the date of reinstatement. Questioning the said order and seeking backwages the instant appeal is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that his dismissal from service was based on the conviction before the criminal court. That the appellant having been acquitted by the appellate court, he is entitled to even the back-wages.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent - Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, disputes the said contentions.
5. However, on hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this appeal. In view of the acquittal in the criminal appeal before this court, the appellant has been directed to be reinstated with all benefits of continuity of services excluding back-wages. Therefore, all the reliefs that the appellant was entitled to has been granted to him. The same would necessarily include annual increments, promotions if any, etc.
6. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that denial of back-wages is an equitable order passed by the learned Single Judge. Grant of even the back-wages would indeed send a wrong message. Under these circumstances, in view of substantial relief being granted to the petitioner, by the learned Single Judge, we do not find it expedient to grant the back-wages. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ