Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sapnarani Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 August, 2017
WP-251-2017
(SAPNARANI SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
16-08-2017
Shri S.C. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against order dated 21.8.2014 by which the respondent has declined to reinstate her into the services, despite acquittal in criminal case.
2. The petitioner was appointed as an Aanganwadi Worker and posted in Hanumatiya Centre,Badnagar District Dhar. The petitioner was made accused along with her husband in a criminal case registered under Section 4 of Gambling Act. Due to registration of a criminal case against the petitioner vide order dated 27.7.2006, the Project Officer has directed the petitioner not to perform the duties of Aanganwadi Worker till she gets acquittal in the criminal case. Later on, by judgment dated 27.2.2012 the petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal case.
3. After the aforesaid acquittal, the petitioner has submitted representation on 9.3.2012 to the respondents. The Project Officer vide letter dated 23.5.2012 sought direction from the District Project Officer Mahila Evam Bal Vikas, District Dhar.
4. Thereafter, again the petitioner has filed representation on 19.8.2014 with a request to take her back on duty. By order dated 21.8.2014 the respondent has rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that there is no provision for reinstatement of the Aanganwadi Worker. Hence, the present petition.
5. I have heard Shri S.C.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite several opportunities, return has not been filed by the respondents and no one is present to seek further time to file the return.
6. The petitioner was appointed as Aanganwadi Worker. Due to registration of a criminal case, the Project Officer directed the petitioner not to attend the duty till she gets acquittal in the criminal case. No charge sheet was served to the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted before so called termination and simply she was asked not to attend the duties. By order dated 27.2.2012 the petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal case. The respondents have wrongly rejected the representation for her reinstatement. The employees, who have been terminated from the services, are liable to be reinstated on acquittal of the criminal case, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Jaipal Singh reported in 2004 1 SCC 121, whereby the Court has held thus:
âOn the other hand, if as a citizen the employee or a public servant got involved in a criminal case and if after initial conviction by the trial court, he gets acquittal on appeal subsequently, the department cannot in any manner be found fault with for having kept him out of service, since the law obliges a person convicted of an offence to be so kept out and not to be retained in service. Consequently, the reasons given in the decision relied upon, for the appellants are not only convincing but are in consonance with reasonableness as well. Though exception taken to that part of the order directing reinstatement cannot be sustained and the respondent has to be reinstated in service, for the reason that the earlier discharge was on account of those criminal proceedings and conviction only, the appellants are well within their rights to deny back wages to the respondent for the period he was not in service. The appellants cannot be made liable to pay for the period for which they could not avail of the services of the respondent. The High Court, in our view, committed a grave error, in allowing back wages also, without adverting to all such relevant aspects and considerations.
Consequently, the order of the high court insofar as it directed payment of back wages is liable to be and is hereby set aside.
And in the matter of Arun Kumar Shukla vs. Union of India and others; reported in 2013 (JV) MPJR 28, whereby the Division Bench of Principal Seat of this High Court has held thus:
8- In the case of Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore (supra), Supreme Court has considered the question of reinstatement of an employee whose service was terminated due to his conviction in a criminal case and the effect of the consequential acquittal in the criminal case by the appellate court and the right of an employee to claim back wages and other benefits.
9- The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held that once the disqualification due to which his services were terminated is wiped out due to acquittal in the criminal case, reinstatement has to be granted. Thereafter, the only question would be with regard to entitlement for back wages and other consequential relief. It is held that it was the conduct of the employee in involving himself in the criminal act which resulted in termination of his service. Consequent upon his acquittal, it is held that he is entitled to be reinstated for the simple reason that the conviction, which formed the basis for his termination, is no more in existence and as the action for termination is not taken against him on the basis of any statutory service rules nor any disciplinary action taken, he cannot be denied reinstatement. However, with regard to the question of payment of back wages, it has been held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that as the employee is not proceeded against and his services are not terminated by way of disciplinary proceedings, the normal rule of granting back wages on quashing of the disciplinary proceedings may not apply, but every case is required to be considered in its own circumstances and a decision has to be taken. It has been held that normally when the conduct of the employee in involving himself in a criminal case is the reason for his termination, then consequent upon his acquittal normally he may not be entitled for back wages.
10- The question was thereafter again considered in the case of Jaipal Singh (supra) and the following principle has been laid down:
â4. .......if as a citizen the employee or a public servant got involved in a criminal case and if after the initial conviction by the trial court, he gets acquittal on appeal subsequently, the department cannot in any manner be found fault with for having kept him out of service, since the law obliges a person convicted of an offence to be so kept out and not be remained in service. Consequently, the reasons given in the decision relied upon, for the appellants are not only convincing but are in consonance with reasonableness as well.â 11- In the aforesaid judgment, it has been clearly held that under law the employer is obliged to keep an employee, convicted of an offence out of service and once he is to remain out of service because of his involvement in the criminal case, he would not be entitled to back wages after his acquittal and reinstatement for the simple reason that it is the employee himself, who is responsible for his involvement in the criminal case and the employer is not obliged to pay him back wages.â
7. The respondents have wrongly rejected the representation of the petitioner as there is no provision of reinstatement. The Authority, who has power to appoint and terminate, has also power to reinstate the employees. The impugned order dated 21.8.2014 (Annexure-P/8) is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to reconsider the representation of the petitioner for taking her back into the services.
C.c.as per Rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE