The Gujarat High Court disposed of a petition praying to issue appropriate writ, order, or directions to quash and set aside the dismissal order dated 31.03.2001, and to direct the respondents to pay arrears of salary and all other consequential benefits arising out of the same with 18%. The Court observed that an employee, who was terminated from services on account of criminal prosecution, would not be able to claim back wages automatically on the ground that he was subsequently acquitted.

Brief Facts:

The petitioner was appointed as Sanitary Inspector by the respondent – Corporation. Pursuant to the allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act, he was put under suspension in the year 1997 by the Corporation. Later on, the petitioner was tried and convicted by the competent Criminal Court. Immediately after his conviction by the Criminal Court, he was dismissed from service by the Corporation in the year 2001. The petitioner approached the Appellate Court, wherein he was acquitted. In the meantime, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. On getting acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner requested the Corporation to grant all the benefits of his service till the date of superannuation, which was denied by the Corporation, and instead was granted notional benefits. Therefore, the present petition.

Contentions of the Petitioner:

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that neither departmental inquiry was initiated nor even notice or memo or charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner by the respondent Corporation. The respondent Corporation cannot withhold the gratuity of the petitioner after the petitioner is superannuated.

Further, he submitted that the petitioner’s incentive, which was due and payable and even admitted by the Head Office and which was to be released in the year 2017, has not been released by the respondent Corporation.

Contentions of the Petitioner:

The Learned Counsel for the Respondent argued that the petitioner was granted notional benefits by the Corporation and accordingly paid all the benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner accepted the said payment without raising any objection or protest at that relevant time. He contended that the petitioner was prosecuted by criminal trial for the offence of corruption and he was not entitled to back wages for the period between termination and superannuation when he never worked.

He further submitted that after conviction, the petitioner came to be dismissed from service in accordance with the rules and regulations of the respondent Corporation. The petitioner was acquitted by the Appellate Court on giving the benefit of the doubt to the petitioner. Therefore, there was no clear acquittal by the petitioner from the charges levied against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that a grant of back wages is never an automatic relief to follow, the theory of ‘no work, no pay’ would apply. Further, an employee, who was terminated from services on account of criminal prosecution, would not be able to claim back wages automatically on the ground that he was subsequently acquitted.

Further, the Court remarked that the respondent Corporation has paid all the benefits notionally, which was accepted by the petitioner without any protest or objection. Taking the said ratio into consideration, any benefit, which is still required to be given to the petitioner notionally, should be given immediately by the respondent Corporation.

The decision of the Court:

The Gujarat High Court, disposing of the petition, held that the respondent Corporation shall pay the remaining benefits, if any, to the petitioner.

Case Title: Rajnikant Motibhai Patel & Ors. vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation

Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt

Case no.: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14507 of 2021

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Naman H Kinkhabwala

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Hamesh C Naidu

Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com

Picture Source :

 
Deepak