- (1.) M. Katju, J. Heard the learned coun sels for the parties.
(2.) THE respondent No. 3 was appointed as machinist on 7-9-1981 vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It was stated in para graphs 6 and 7 of the appointment letter that if any information is received sub sequently about the detention for interroga tion in police lock up or conviction in criminal case which was suppressed, the same shall be treated as disqualification in service. THE respondent No. 3 was prosecuted for an offence under Section 182, I. P. C. and on that ground his service was terminated vide order dated 6-2-1982, Annexure-3 to the petition. Admittedly, the petitioner was subsequently acquitted in the criminal case. It is settled law that where a person is acquitted in the criminal case, the prosecution of the person is to be ignored and the judgment will operate with retrospective effect. Hence, in my opinion the order dated 6-2-1982 was erroneous in law since the respondent No. 3 was ac quitted in the criminal case. The respondent No. 3 raised an in dustrial dispute which was decided in his favour vide award dated 26-9-1995, true copy of which is Annexure 12 to the writ petition. As far as the merits of the case, I find no infirmity in the impugned award as the respondent No. 3 was acquitted in the criminal case and hence the termination became illegal. However, since the refer ence was made in 1990, I am of the opinion that while the respondent No. 3 has to be reinstated the impugned award dated 26-9-1995 shall be modified to the extent that the respondent No. 3 shall get only one-fourth wages from the date of reference dated 14-9-1990 till today but hence forth he shall be given full wages. He will also be entitled to continuity of service.
(3.) THE petition is disposed of with these observations. Order accordingly. .;