HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4151/2012
Ram Pratap S/o Shri Chellu Ram, aged about 58 years, R/o P.N.
48, Shriram Marg, Ridhi Sidhi Nagar, near Niwaru Byepass Pulia,
Jhotwara, Jaipur 302012. At present posted as Sub-Inspector,
Rajasthan Police, Police Line, Jaipur City, Jaipur.
....Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary to the
Government, Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police, Police H.Q. Jaipur.
3. Commissioner Of Police, Metropolitan City, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Jaipur (East), Police
Commissionerate, Jaipur City, Jaipur.
...Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.V. Nandwana, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.S. Naruka, Adv. for Mr. Rupin Kala, GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment / Order Reserved on 07/03/2022 Pronounced on 01/04/2022
1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the orders impugned dated 04/04/2011 (Annexure-7) and 07/07/2011 (Annexure-9) and for direction to the respondents to make payments of all benefits including salary, annual grade increments and other consequential benefits with interest @24% per annum. (Downloaded on 01/04/2022 at 08:57:38 PM)
(2 of 6) [CW-4151/2012]
2. Brief facts of the case as per the petitioner are that the petitioner was working as Sub Inspector in Rajasthan Police against whom one criminal case (no. 1049/2005) was registered on the basis of charge-sheet filed under Section 384, 341/34 of IPC in the FIR No.357/2005 dated 10/06/2005 alleging that on 10/06/2005, the petitioner along with other persons illegally stopped one truck and tried to extort money by misuse of their authority.
3. In the said criminal case, the learned trial court, after conducting trial, acquitted the petitioner of the offence under Section 341/34, 384 IPC vide judgment dated 25/01/2006 giving benefit of doubt.
4. It has come on record that for the aforesaid delinquency, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 15/07/2005 (Annexure-3) but on account of the temporary injunction granted by the learned Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur, the said order of dismissal could not be given effect to. After rejection/vacation of the temporary injunction on 28/01/2008 by the learned ADJ Court, an order dated 08/02/2008 (Annexure-4) was passed by the respondents giving effect to the dismissal order dated 15/07/2005 from its date. Against the dismissal order dated 15/07/2005, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Inspector General of Police, Jaipur Range-I, Jaipur which was dismissed vide order dated 25/08/2008 (Annexure-6). Thereafter which a review petition was filed by the petitioner under Rule 34 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958, before His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan, wherein it was held that:-
(Downloaded on 01/04/2022 at 08:57:38 PM)
(3 of 6) [CW-4151/2012] "In view of the findings of the judicial courts exonerating the delinquent, as also the finding that the invocation of summary procedures under rule 19(2) of CCA Rules, as has been done in this case, do not appear to be justified, the review petition is accepted and the orders of SP East Jaipur and IG Range-I Jaipur are set aside"
The review petition was accepted and the impugned orders by which the petitioner was dismissed from service and the appellate order rejecting his appeal were set aside vide order dated 04/03/2011 (Annexure-6)
5. In compliance of the order dated 04/03/2011 passed by His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan, the respondents passed an order dated 04/04/2011 (Annexure-7) by which though the petitioner was reinstated, however, the back wages for the intervening period were denied on the basis of 'no work no pay'. Against the order dated 04/04/2011, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Police so far as denial of back wages was concerned, but the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 07/07/2011 (Annexure-9) by relying upon judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 05/02/2009 passed in Udai Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (DB Civil Special Appal No.339/1999 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.3818/1998) on the principle of 'no work no pay'.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Dr. Prabhat Kadavat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2015(1) WLC (Raj.) 299 wherein it was held that even if the exoneration/acquittal is on account of benefit of doubt, in that case also, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement and back wages with all consequential benefits.
(Downloaded on 01/04/2022 at 08:57:38 PM)
(4 of 6) [CW-4151/2012]
7. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order passed by His Excellency in review petition as well as the order passed by the competent court are qua acquitting the petitioner on benefit of doubt. The petitioner was performing uniformed duties under disciplined force and the acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt is not honourable and clean. The petitioner's conduct will always be under cloud. Moreover, the petitioner has neither performed any work and nor rendered any duty during intervening period and therefore, on the principle of 'no work no pay', the petitioner will not be entitled for any back wages. The authorities have passed a justified order in compliance with the order passed by His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan in review petition and the action of the respondents is also in conformity with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Methu Meda (Civil Appeal No.6238 of 2021), decided on 06/10/2021 reported in (2022) 1 SCC 1 wherein it has been held as under:-
"22. As discussed hereinabove, the law is well- settled. If a person is acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt, from the charge of an offence involving moral turpitude or because the witnesses turned hostile, it would not automatically entitle him for the employment, that too in disciplined force. The employer is having a right to consider his candidature in terms of the circulars issued by the Screening Committee. The mere disclosure of the offences alleged and the result of the trial is not sufficient. In the said situation, the employer cannot be compelled to give appointment to the candidate. Both the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court have not considered the said legal position, as discussed above in the orders impugned. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 3897 of 2013 and Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1090 of 2013 are not sustainable in law, as discussed herein above."(Downloaded on 01/04/2022 at 08:57:38 PM)
(5 of 6) [CW-4151/2012]
8. This Court has gone through the contentions advanced by respective counsels, records of the writ petition as well as judgments cited at bar.
9. In the case in hand, it is an admitted position that the petitioner was working as a Sub Inspector which is a discipline and uniformed post for the security of public at large. He was alleged of the charges wherein he and his colleagues restrained a truck driver and tried to extort money out of him. In the criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges giving him benefit of doubt. In review jurisdiction, His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan has given a categorical direction, after considering the findings of the judicial court, allowing the review petition of the petitioner and setting aside the orders of dismissal as well as the appellate order. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner was neither on duty nor had rendered any work during the intervening period but without giving him any opportunity of hearing and without considering his case, even after passing the order dt.04/03/2011 by the Hon'ble Governor, the order dated 04/04/2011 was passed by the respondents by which, though he was reinstated but the back wages were denied and the appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 07/07/2011 in the same manner.
10. In view thereof, the orders impugned have been passed by the respondents without following the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. Once the order has been passed by the Hon'ble Governor allowing the review petition of the petitioner, the directions given in the order of review could not have been interfered with or interpreted by the (Downloaded on 01/04/2022 at 08:57:38 PM) (6 of 6) [CW-4151/2012] respondents in their own manner. Hence, the orders impugned are without authority of law as no other interpretation, other than in the review order, was within the domain of the respondents.
11. Thus, the orders impugned so far as the back wages has been denied to the petitioner are without jurisdiction and without authority of law. The judgments cited by the respondents of the Apex Court in Methu Meda (supra) pertains to recruitment and the acquittal was not reviewed by the Governor. Hence the same is distinguishable. Further, relying upon coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Dr. Prabhat Kadavat (supra), this Court is of the view that even if the acquittal has been made giving benefit of doubt, then also the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated with back wages and other consequential benefits specially when the order under review passed by the Governor is not expressly debarring the same.
12. In view of above discussions, the instant writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned passed by the respondents, so far as the petitioner has been denied the benefit of back wages, are hereby quashed and set aside and the petitioner is held entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits including back wages. The compliance of this order be made by the respondents within a period of three months of receipt of certified copy of this order in their office. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J Raghu/24 (Downloaded on 01/04/2022 at 08:57:38 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)