M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN this writ application the question falls for consideration is whether after the acquittal of the petitioner in criminal charge, he is entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary after recalling the order of his dismissal from service.
(2.) THE petitioner was in the service of respondent -Steel Authority of India Ltd. and was posted as Assistant Grade -II in the Bokaro Steel Plant. In 1984 a criminal case was instituted against the petitioner on the charges of demanding illegal gratification and a case was registered being R.C. Case No. 6/84 under Section 161. IPC read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After institution of the case the petitioner was taken into custody. The petitioner was then put under suspension vide order dated 11.5.84. In 1989 the order of suspension was revoked and the petitioner was paid his salary for the period of suspension. In 1994 the trial of the criminal case was concluded and by judgment dated 20.1.94 the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentenced, preferred an appeal before the Patna High Court which was registered as Cr. Appeal No. 16/94 (R). By reason of conviction of the petitioner in the criminal case, an office order was issued on 11.7.94 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service of the respondent -Company. The criminal appeal was however, disposed of by judgment dated 17.8.2000 and the petitioner was acquitted from the charges levelled against him and the judgment and order of conviction was set aside. On receipt of the order of acquittal in criminal appeal the petitioner applied before the respondent No. 2 for revoking the order of dismissal and reinstating the petitioner in service with full backwages. It is stated by the petitioner that he filed several representations but no order was passed. The respondents appeared and filed counter affidavit stating, infer alia, that the representation of the petitioner was considered and by office order dated 9.4.2001 he has been reinstated in service. It is, however, stated that though the petitioner has been reinstated, he would not be entitled to get backwages.
(3.) MR . A.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the action of the respondents in not making payment of backwages is highly arbitrary and discriminatory inasmuch as the respondents are adopting double standard under the similar set of facts. It is contended that in similar circumstances one S.P. Singh, Assistant Grade I. after acquittal from criminal charges, has been paid backwages. In support of his contention, he has annexed a copy of the judgment passed by Patna High Court in Cr. Appeal No. 47/94 (R). In this connection, learned counsel also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vikramaditya Pandey v. Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow. (2001) 2 SCC 423.;