Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 930 of 2014 dated 2nd December, 2014, whereby, the petition preferred by this appellant was dismissed and the prayer for getting back wages during the period of suspension was not accepted by this Court and, hence, the original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) Factual Matrix: "• This appellant (original petitioner) was appointed on the post of Clerk with effect from 21st December, 2004 in the Building Construction Department, State of Jharkhand. • This appellant (original petitioner) was involved in criminal charge of dowry death of his wife under Sec. 304 -B of the Indian Penal Code, cruelty by husband under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code to be read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. • This appellant (original petitioner) was arrested on 28th August, 2005 (as jointly submitted by learned counsels for both the sides). • By virtue of Rule 99 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, he was under deemed suspension. • Thereafter, investigation was carried out by the competent Investigating Officer. Chargesheet was filed against this appellant and the case was committed to the Sessions Court being Sessions Trial No. 844 of 2005 before 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa, Nalanda, Bihar. • This appellant was acquitted by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa, Nalanda, Bihar vide order dated 5th August, 2008. • The suspension was revoked from 14th August, 2008. • The order was passed by the respondents dated 6th November, 2008 under Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 for the reinstatement of this appellant with effect from 14th August, 2008, the date on which he joined the services. • No order was passed for the back wages to be paid to this appellant (original petitioner) for the period of suspension. This appellant was paid subsistence allowance during suspension period. • As the salary was not paid for the period of suspension, writ petition being W. P. (S) No. 930 of 2014 was preferred by this appellant, wherein, prayer was made to regularize the services of the appellant for the period from 18th October, 2005 to 13th August, 2008 i.e. the period of suspension on account of pendency of a criminal case and for getting full salary, allowances and subsequent promotion with all consequential benefits along with interest. As the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 2nd December, 2014, present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner."
(3.) Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant: "• Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that as this appellant has been acquitted by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa, Nalanda in Sessions Trial No. 844 of 2005 vide order dated 5th August, 2008 and as the suspension of this appellant has been revoked with effect from 14th August, 2008, this appellant is entitled to get salary, allowances and consequential benefits along with interest as per Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. • Learned counsel appearing for the appellant (original petitioner) has relied upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, reported in : (1984) 2 SCC 433. On the basis of the aforesaid decision, it is submitted that once suspension is revoked because of acquittal from the criminal charges, levelled against the delinquent, he is entitled to reinstatement with all full back wages. • It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court clearly lays down the ratio that once there is an acquittal and the employee's suspension is revoked, he is entitled to full salary or his reinstatement for the entire period of suspension. The learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the ratio propounded by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision. • Learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that suspension has been revoked from 14th August, 2008, whereas, it should have been from the date of acquittal i.e. with effect from 28th July, 2005 i.e. from the date of arrest. • Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also relied upon other decisions upon binding effect of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and it is, therefore, submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside and the prayers made in the writ petition may kindly be allowed.";