Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
B.Govinda Rao vs Jaipal Singh (2004) 1 Scc 121 The ... on 5 December, 2008
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH HYDERABAD Original Application No. 764/2008 Date of Order : 5th December, 2008 Between: B.Govinda Rao ... Applicant And 1.The Secretary, Department of HRD, (Department of School Education & Literacy, Government of India), 1-1-10/3. S.P.Road, Secunderabad. 2.The Deputy Commissioner, NVS, Hyderabad Region, Secunderabad. 3.The Assistant Commissioner (Pers), NVS, Hyderabad Region, Secunderabad. .. Respondents Counsel for the applicant ... Mrs.A.Gayatri Reddy Counsel for the respondents ... Mr.D.V.Sitarama Murthy CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.Lakshmana Reddy ... Vice Chairman Hon'ble Mr. R.Santhanam ... Member (Admn.) ORAL ORDER
{As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.Lakshmana Reddy, Vice Chairman } Heard Mrs.Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Srinath representing Mr.D.V.Sitarama Murthy, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The present application is filed challenging the proceedings dated 19.11.2008 wherein a condition was imposed for reinstatement into service that the applicant should furnish an undertaking to the effect that he would not claim any back wages.
3. The relevant facts in brief are as follows :
The applicant was appointed as PGT, Physics, JNVCC, Nalgonda. While he was in service his wife filed a criminal case against him under Section 306 of IPC before the police and police registered a case and after investigation a charge sheet was issued to the applicant. The Trial Court after due trial and found guilty of the charges and convicted the applicant. After the trial court convicted the applicant the respondents have dismissed the applicant from service on 27.03.2003. Thereafter the applicant approached the Sessions Court, Nalgonda while acquitting for the charge under Section 306 I.P.C. confirmed the conviction in respect of the offence punishable under Section 496-A IPC. Against the said orders the applicant filed Revision R.C.No.1426/2002 before the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble High Court allowed the revision on 13.06.2007. After the applicant obtained acquittal from the Hon'ble High Court the applicant made several representations seeking reinstatement. The Government of A.P. issued a memorandum dated 14.05.2008 clarifying that they do not consider it necessary to file a petition for leave to Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the judgement of High Court of A.P. Even thereafter the respondents did not reinstate the applicant. The Deputy Commissioner issued a memorandum dated 01.04.2008 informing the applicant that he will be reinstated into service subject to the condition that he shall not claim any back wages latest by 15.04.2008. The applicant submitted his reply on 18.10.2008 stating that he wanted to join in service first and then as per his legal rights he will proceed to claim for consequential service benefits and therefore he may be reinstated immediately. On 19.11.2008 the respondents have passed the impugned order stating that his reinstatement into service can only be considered only after receipt of the undertaking to the effect that he would not claim any back wages and as such it is not feasible to issue reinstatement order and further correspondence shall be entertained only on receipt of the requisite undertaking latest by 30.11.2008 and if he fails to submit undertaking by 30.11.2008 it shall be construed that he is no longer interested in the matter. Aggrieved by the same the present application is filed contending that imposing such a condition for reinstatement is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violation of Articles 14 and 15 of Constitution of India and therefore a direction may be given to the respondents to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits such as back wages, seniority and arrears and allowances.
4. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the contentions raised in the application. Counsel for the respondents submitted that as per the decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Jaipal Singh (2004) 1 SCC 121 the applicant will be entitled to back wages only from the date of acquittal and not for the period of entire absence.
5. The point that arise for consideration in this application is whether the applicant is entitled for reinstatement ? If so, whether the applicant is entitled for back wages for the entire period ?
6. It is not disputed that no departmental enquiry has been initiated by the department against the applicant during the pendency of the criminal case or after the acquittal in the criminal case by the Hon'ble High Court. As the Hon'ble High Court acquitted the applicant on merits in R.C.No.1426/2002 on 13.06.2007 conviction is no longer there. As the applicant was dismissed from service only on account of conviction the respondents are bound to reinstate the applicant as and when the said conviction is set aside by a competent court of law. No condition can be imposed for passing orders of reinstatement. The respondents are bound to first pass an order of reinstatement and if the applicant claims back wages the respondents are expected to pass appropriate orders in accordance with rules. But admittedly no orders have been passed under FR 54. So far as the payment of pay and allowances for the period of dismissal is concerned, FR 54 has to be followed. The respondents are expected to pass an appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions contained in FR 54. As the respondents have not passed orders under FR 54, we wanted to keep that issue open by giving liberty to the respondents to pass appropriate orders under FR 54 so far as the payment of wages for the period during which the applicant was out of service. So far as the reinstatement is concerned, the respondents are bound to pass the orders of reinstatement forthwith. Thus these points are found accordingly.
7. In the result the OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the applicant forthwith, and giving liberty to the respondents to pass appropriate orders in accordance with FR 54 and also the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard.
8. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.
( R.SANTHANAM) (P.LAKSHMANA REDDY) MEMBER (ADMN.) VICE CHAIRMAN Dated : 5th December, 2008 (Dictated in Open Court)