The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 24th March 2017 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal whereby it allowed the original application filed by the respondent for payment of full salary and allowances during the period from 30th June 1999 to 26th March 2013, during which he was under dismissal owing to his conviction in the criminal case. The Court observed that the Respondent’s acquittal was essentially on account of the compromise entered into with his wife.
Brief Facts:
The respondent was working on the post of Constable at Nashik Road. His wife lodged a complaint against him alleging offences under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code leading. On account of his criminal prosecution, the respondent was placed under suspension. Upon completion of the trial, the respondent was convicted. On account of his conviction, the petitioners dismissed the Respondent from service. The respondent filed a criminal appeal challenging his conviction, which came to be dismissed. Respondent preferred Criminal Revision Application, during the pendency of which, the disputes between the respondent and his wife were amicably resolved. Criminal Application was filed by the respondent seeking compounding of offences by filing consent terms. The court allowed the application.
Upon his acquittal, Respondent filed an application seeking his reinstatement, which was rejected. Respondent thereafter approached the Government seeking reinstatement. Original Application was filed by the respondent before the Tribunal for treatment of the period from 30th June 1999 to 26th March 2013 as duty. The Original Application was disposed of by directing the petitioners to take a decision.
The petitioners decided to pay only 50% salary and allowances to the respondent during the period from 30th June 1999 to 26th March 2013. Aggrieved by the same, the Respondent approached the Tribunal which allowed the Application. Aggrieved by that judgment and order, petitioners have filed the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the tribunal has failed to appreciate that respondent has not been honourably acquitted in the criminal trial. That his conviction was set aside essentially on account of a compromise reached with the complainant wife. That his dismissal was owing to a conviction arising out of his private affairs not connected with duty and that therefore the State Government cannot be saddled with the burden of paying the full salary and allowances to him.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the respondent opposed the petition and argued that no departmental inquiry was conducted against the respondent who was dismissed from services only on account of his conviction in the criminal case. That upon acquittal, the respondent is entitled to full back wages.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that it is not a case where the respondent has been acquitted on merits by this court. His acquittal is essentially on account of the compromise entered into with his wife. Payment of salary is not automatic upon a reinstatement after reversal of the order of conviction.
Further, the Court remarked that the Respondent’s attributable to compromise with his wife. Petitioner-State therefore cannot be saddled with the liability to pay salary and allowances during the period when the respondent remained under dismissal. Respondent had involved himself in a criminal case arising out of his private affairs unconnected with the performance of his duties. He kept himself away from his duties on account of his conviction. In such circumstances, there is no question of payment of full salary and allowances to the respondent. 50% back wages, the Court said, are more than sufficient considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the petition, held that the Tribunal committed an error in granting 100% back wages, and hence, its order is liable to be set aside.
Case Title: The State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs Shri Surendra G. Ghodake
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Hon’ble Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 2470 OF 2018
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Nisha M. Mehra
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Omkar Kulkarni
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
