VERMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner who was working as Branch Manager (called as Agent also which post is also designated as Agent) in the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, was involved by some interested persons for taking a bride of Rs. 100/ -. Even though the defence of the petitioner was that the complainant had wanted Rs. 1/- note in exchange for the said currency notes of Rs. 100/-, however, the petitioner was trapped in a raid manipulated by one Shri Phool Singh Mann of M/s. Kishan Electric Corporation. Certain departmental enquiry was also held which had resulted in favour of the petitioner.
(2.) THE present case relates only on the point and law on the given facts whether the petitioner who was removed form service on heaving been convicted by the trial court but ultimately acquitted by the appellate court was entitled to get back his job and arrears of salary or not? Vide Annex. 1, the petitioner was suspended for having been involved in the offence punishable u/s. 161 and 5 (1) (d) r/w Sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act stating therein that the pending further investigation by the police authorities, the petitioner would stand suspended from service with subsistence allowance to be paid to the extent of 50%. The petitioner was convicted by the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jaipur on 1. 2. 1980 for the offence as mentioned above. On his being convicted, the petitioner was removed from service vide Annex. 2 It was specifically mentioned in Annex. 2 that the petitioner is being removed as he stands convicted by a criminal court involving moral turpitude and, therefore, he was being discharged w. e. f. 5. 3. 1980. The petitioner objected his such removal vide Annex. 3 stating therein that he has filed a criminal appeal against the order of conviction being S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 77/80 and, therefore, removal of the petitioner from service was unjustified in view of pendency of the criminal appeal. The conviction of the petitioner was ultimately setaside by the High Court in the aforesaid appeal on 3. 4. 1998, copy of which order has been attached as Annex. 4 to the writ petition. High Court while deciding the appeal had held that the defence/explanation given by the petitioner was reasonable and possibility of decoy Shri P. S. Mann for exchanging GC notes of Rs. 100/- with fresh packet of Rs. 1/- cannot be ruled out. The High Court further observed that the conviction of the petitioner was based on surmises and conjectures. On having been so acquitted by the High Court, the petitioner immediately approached the respondent to look into the matter once again favourably and to issue orders for payment of arrears etc. Repeated reminders were sent including a notice from his counsel as per Annex. 5, 6, 7 & 8 but without any result and being aggrieved the petitioner has approached this court to grant him all such reliefs like salary, fixation, grade increments, seniority, gratuity, P. F. , Pension and other admissible benefits attached to the service treating the petitioner in service till the age of superannuation. It goes without saying that the petitioner has reached the age of superannuation during the pendency of the writ petition. For the proposition reliance is placed by the petitioner on a judgment of this court in the case of Bijendra Singh vs. Administration, Sikar Kendriya Bank Ltd. (1), wherein it was held that in case the only ground for termination of the services of the employee is that of his conviction of offence involving moral turpitude then as and when he is acquitted by the Criminal Court, he should be reinstated unless the employer takes disciplinary proceedings and he is found guilty. In Vidya Charan Shukla vs. Purshottam Lal Kaushik (2) and Mani Lal vs. Parmai Lal and Others (3), it was held that if the conviction and sentence are set aside by the appellate court, then the acquittal is effected retrospectively wiping out as if it never existed. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that if only the ground on which the service of the employees are dispensed with is that he has been convicted by Criminal Court on the charge involving moral turpitude and if in an appeal, conviction is set aside, then the dismissal order should go and the government Servant has to be reinstated.
(3.) PER contra the counsel for the respondent relies on Hukmi Chand vs. Jhabua Coop. Central Bank Ltd. , (5), Union of India vs. Bihari Lal Sidhana (5), and other similar law on the point that there is no bar for holding a departmental enquiry if an employee is acquitted by criminal charge. The submission and the law being relied by the counsel for the respondent has no bearing what-so- ever on the facts of the present case. The petitioner has specifically mentioned in para 5 of the writ petition that certain enquiry officer was appointed who had given the finding in favour of the petitioner at the time of incident which is not denied. It is also not denied that the petitioner had ultimately been acquitted from the charges and as such there is no allegation what-so-ever left against the petitioner. It is also not denied as per Annex-1 and 2 that the petitioner was discharged from service only because of the conviction by the trial court and on no other ground and if such conviction has already been set aside by the High Court, nothing remains against the petitioner as to dis-entitle him to remain in service or to claim benefits attached to the post and as such in such situation the petition is to succeed. It was a fit case where the respondent Bank which maintains its own legal section ought to have considered the case of the petitioner with open mind and in accordance with the settled law instead of compelling the petitioner to knock the doors of this court with further delay of three years. The petitioner shall be entitled to the cost of this case which is assessed as Rs. 2000/.- ;