Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dwarka Prasad Kashyap vs The State Of M.P on 20 January, 2010
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
W.P. No. 13843/2003
Dwarka Prasad Kashyap
Vs.
State of M.P. and others
Present : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S. Jha.
For the petitioner : None.
For the respondents : Shri Rahul Jain, Dy. G.A.
ORDER
(20.1.2010) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the stipulations made by the respondents in the order dated 22.7.1996 wherein although the petitioner has been reinstated on his being acquitted in the criminal case but backwages have been denied to him and the intervening period has been directed to be treated as break in service.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner at the relevant time was working as an Assistant Teacher in the Tribal School under the Tribal Welfare Department at Balaghat having joined services on 17.3.1966. On a criminal case being registered against him under section 302 of the I.P.C. he was taken in police custody on 14.2.1972 and a criminal 2 trial was instituted against him. On the basis of above the respondents/Department terminated the petitioner's services by order dated 26.4.1972 with effect from 17.3.72. The petitioner was ultimately acquitted in the criminal trial by the District and Sessions Judge, Balaghat by judgment dated 28.11.1972 and the appeal filed by the State against the petitioner's acquittal also suffered dismissal on 31.8.1979.
3. It is stated by the petitioner that he submitted an application for rejoining his post on 2.9.79 and thereafter repeated the same request on 1.6.80 but the respondents/authorities did not permit him to rejoin the services. On 10.5.95 he again filed an application before the Collector. Ultimately, the State on considering his application dated 11.10.80 directed reappointment of the petitioner by order dated 22.7.96 but denied the benefit of backwages and further directed that the intervening period i.e. from the date of dismissal till the date of reappointment be treated as break in service. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid the petitioner initially approached the authorities and thereafter the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. The petition having been transferred to this court is being heard and decided.
4. It is submitted by the petitioner in the petition that the stipulations in the impugned order dated 22.7.96 denying backwages and treating the intervening period as break in service is contrary to law and deserves to be quashed.
5. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Dy. Government Advocate appearing for the State that the 3 petitioner cannot claim backwages as of right nor can he claim that he be given full benefits, moreso, in view of the fact that he was terminated on account of his conviction in a criminal case and thereafter on a sympathetic consideration has been directed to be reappointed, in such circumstances, reliefs sought by the petitioner are misconceived.
6. As is apparent from the perusal of the record, the petitioner was terminated on account of pendency of the criminal case in which he was acquitted and the order of acquittal was also affirmed in the appeal in the year 1979. It is also clear from the perusal of the impugned order that the respondents/authorities have directed reappointment of the petitioner on the basis of an application filed by the petitioner on 11.10.80 after a long lapse of 16 years. In my considered opinion as the termination of the petitioner was based on the pendency of the criminal case and his conviction therein, the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement and reappointment on his being acquitted in the criminal case as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Babu Lal Vs. State of Haryana and others 1991 (2) SCC 335 and Sulekh Chand and Salek Chand Vs. Commissioner of Police and others 1994 (suppl.) (3) SCC 674.
7. Though it is a settled law that such reinstatement is not automatic and on being reinstated the employer has the right to initiate departmental proceedings against the employee. In the instant case the respondents chose not to do so and on considering the application filed by the petitioner on 11.10.80 ordered his reappointment instead of reinstatement.
48. It is also evident that till the date petitioner was not acquitted and the appeal filed against acquittal was not dismissed, the termination of the petitioner was justified but the respondents/authorities on his being acquitted were required to expeditiously consider his case pursuant to the application filed by him on 11.10.80 which was not done by the authorities. In fact orders on the application filed by the petitioner on 11.10.80 were passed on 22.7.96 and therefore the delay in passing the appropriate orders of reinstatement from 11.10.80 to 22.7.96 was on the part of the authorities and State and not on the petitioner.
9. In such circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned stipulations in the order dated 22.7.96 are hereby quashed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been reinstated in services on his acquittal and the entire period shall be counted for the purpose of pension. It is further directed that the petitioner would also be entitled to 25% backwages for the period 11.10.80 to 22.7.96.
10. The petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(R.S. Jha) Judge msp 5