- (1.) R. K. Batta, J. The petitioner was serving as a Rakshak in Railway Protection Force from
(2.) 12. 1983. On 11. 2. 1989, a crime no. 64/89 was registered against the petitioner alongwith one other in respect of an offence under section 366-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was put under suspension vide Order dtd. 17. 2. 1989. The petitioner alongwith one other was tried for the said offence and by detailed Judgment dtd. 23rd July, 1996, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur acquitted the petitioner and one other. 2. According to the petitioner, dismissal order was passed against him on the strength of the registration of the said offence and the order of dismissal was passed on 31. 3. 1989. The dismissal order has been passed without issuing the charge sheet and without conducting enquiry. According to the petitioner, the order of dismissal appears to have been passed under Rule 161 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 which empowers the competent authority to impose punishment if it is satisfied for the reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold enquiry under the said Rules. The Petitioner had, therefore, approached this Court seeking to set aside the said order of dismissal dtd. 31. 1. 1989. After the petitioner was acquitted, the petition was amended and the petitioner sought further direction for grant of seniority, promotion, increments etc. as also salary with 18% interest. The respondent in Return has stated that the case was dealt with under the special Rule 161(II) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 in order to maintain sanctity, moral and reputation of the Railway Police Force. It is pertinent to note that the Respondent in para no. 3 of the Return has submitted that the Petitioner will get all benefits restored to him, if he is acquitted honourably by the courts.
(3.) IN view of the commitment in the Return of the respondent, the Advocates for the parties were heard. The learned Advocate for the petitioner after placing reliance on the Judgment in the case of Dattatraya Vasudeo Kukkarni reported in 1984 (2) S. L. R. 222, has urged before us that it is clearly held in the said Judgment that the concept of " honourable acquittal" or "full exoneration" is inappropriate qua the result of the criminal prosecution. He, therefore, submits that in view of the acquittal of the petitioner he is entitled to be reinstated with backwages and all benefits. However, learned Advocate for the petitioner has, on instructions of the petitioner, urged before us that the petitioner in all fairness does not insist for payment of back wages but the other benefits like seniority, notional increment etc. be granted to the petitioner.;