- (1.) PARITOSH K. Mukherjee, J. This writ petition was heard by me on November 3, 1995, Learned Standing counsel was granted three weeks time to file a counter affidavit showing cause as to why the petitioner, who has been exonerated of the charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, has not been reinstated In service.
(2.) AT the resumed hearing of the writ petition, it appears that no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. Neither learned Standing Counsel is present, nor any mention has been made on his behalf for adjournment. Since, I had heard the learned Standing Counsel, at a considerable length on November 3, 1995, and the petitioner is out of em ployment, I feel that it is expedient in the interest of justice to dispose of the writ petition after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri V. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the legal position is that if an employee is honourably acquitted from the criminal trial, he is deemed to be reinstated in service. In the present case, though the petitioner was on daily wages, he was sacked on account of his involvement in the criminal case. The petitioner was appointed as daily wages class IV employee, as far back as in 1982 along with several other persons. He had worked till December 1990 when he was implicated in a criminal case under Section 302,1pc. During the period of criminal trial, persons, who were appointed with the petitioner in 1982, have been regularised. Since petitioner was involved in the criminal case, his case could not be considered. The petitioner has been honourably acquitted by. judgment and order dated 12-5-1992 passed by VIIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad, which is contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition. It has been, therefore, strenuously urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the changed circumstances, petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits which have been conferred on the persons who were appointed along with him way back in 1982.
(3.) I find force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. Although, the petitioner was appointed in 1982, on daily wages, he con tinued to work as such till 1990. But, for his involvement in a criminal case under Section 302, IPC, the petitioner would not have been sacked. Now, when the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, and, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the judgment rendered by court below has attained finality, there is no justification in depriving the petitioner from his job, in these days of unemployment. More so, by efflux of time, the petitioner has crossed the upper age of Government employment. It is to be noted that no departmental proceeding is intended to be initiated after the acquittal in the criminal case, and, according to the petitioner, there was no material for initiating departmental proceeding.;