Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
RANCHHODJI CHATURJI THAKORE
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, GUJARATELECTRICITY BOARD, HIMMA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/10/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK.
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
This case does not warrant interference for the reason
that, admittedly, the petitioner was charged for an offence
under Section 302 read with 34 IPC for his involvement in a
crime committed on October 1, 1986. The Sessions Judge had
convicted the petitioner under Section 302 read with 34 IPC
and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. On that
basic the respondents had taken action to have him dismissed
from service since he was working as Junior Clerk in the
respondent-Electricity Board. The petitioner challenged the
validity of the dismissal order by way of a special civil
application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Pending disposal, the Division Bench of the High Court by
its judgment dated October 14,1992 acquitted him of the
offence. Consequently, while disposing of the writ petition,
the learned single judge directed the respondent to
reinstate him into the service with continuity of the
service, but denied back wages. The petitioner then filed
letters Patent Appeal No.319/93 which was dismissed by the
impugned order dated August 26,1993. Thus, this special
leave petition.
The reinstatement of the petitioner into the service
has already been ordered by the High Court. The only
question is: whether he is entitled to back wages? It was
his conduct of involving himself in the crime that was taken
into account for his not being in service of the respondent.
Consequent upon his acquittal, he is entitled to
reinstatement for the reason that his service was terminated
on the basic of the conviction by operation of proviso to
the statutory rules applicable the situation. The question
of back wages would be considered only if the respondents
have taken action by way of disciplinary proceeding and the
action was found to be unsustainable in law and he was
unlawfully prevented from discharging the duties. In that
context, his conduct becomes relevant, Each case requires to
be considered in his own backdrops. In this case, since the
petitioner had involved himself in a crime, though he was
later acquitted, he had disabled himself from rendering the
service on account of conviction and incarceration in jail.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to
payment of back wages. The learned single judge and the
Division Bench have not committed any error of law
warranting interference.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.