Raju Gopal Chavan vs The Commissioner, Pimpari ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12955 Bom

                                           28.WPNo.44852018(C).doc

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                WRIT PETITION NO. 4485 OF 2018

Raju Gopal Chavan,
Age 50 years, Occ : Service,
As Deputy Accountant, PCMC
R/at: Kamraj Nagar, Yerawada,
Pune 411 006.                               ...        Petitioner

               Versus

1.     The Commissioner,
       Pimpari Chinchwad Municipal
       Corporation, Pimpari, 411 008

2.     Pimpari Chinchawad Municipal
       Corporation Through :
       its Secretary, Pimpari 411 008.      ...        Respondents


Mr. Abhijeet Kandharkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. G. H. Keluskar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and
2.

                  CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, Acting CJ &
                         S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

                  DATED : DECEMBER 13, 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, ACJ)

1.     Rule.    Rule made returnable forthwith.           With the
consent of the parties, taken up for fnal disposal.

2.     The     petitioner   joined   services   of    respondents/
Corporation on 9th February 1984 as 'Clerk'.

3.     The criminal case was instituted against the petitioner
for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the


Gaikwad RD                                                           1/5
                                                    28.WPNo.44852018(C).doc

Indian Penal Code (IPC) in the year 1985. The petitioner
was convicted on or about 16 th May 2002 for the said
offences by the Sessions Court. The petitioner preferred an
appeal before this Court. Upon conviction of the petitioner
in sessions case, the respondents/Corporation dismissed the
petitioner from service on or about 30 th December 2004. on
3rd July 2014, the appeal fled by the petitioner is allowed
and the petitioner stood acquitted in the said sessions case.
On or about 29th September 2015, the petitioner is
reinstated in service on the minimum basic salary for the
post of Deputy Accountant.

4.     On    or   about      1st    June    2017,     the    respondents/
Corporation       rejected         the   request     of     petitioner   for
continuation of service and back wages.

5.     The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has been honourably acquitted in the sessions
case. In view of that, the petitioner is entitled for salary
from the date the petitioner was terminated to the date of
reinstatement.      The       departmental          enquiry      was     not
conducted. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioner
would have been entitled for all consequential benefts such
as increments, continuity in service.                The petitioner has
superannuated in the year 2019.

6.     The learned Advocate for respondents/Corporation
submits that the petitioner was convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC. The
Corporation has, within its rights, reinstated the petitioner
on the minimum basic salary for the post on which the
petitioner was working. No illegality has been committed by

Gaikwad RD                                                                     2/5
                                               28.WPNo.44852018(C).doc

the Corporation.              The petitioner was convicted by the
Competent Court. As such, the Corporation took conscious
decision of terminating the services of petitioner and upon
acquittal is reinstated in service and salary is also paid from
the date prior to the reinstatement i.e. the date of judgment
of this Court acquitting the petitioner.              The learned
Advocate for Corporation relies upon the judgment of
Division Bench of this Court in Vasant Krushnaji Kamble v.
State of Maharashtra & Anr.1.

7.       We have considered all the submissions.

8.       The factual matrix narrated supra do not seem to be
disputed.        The Authorities have purportedly relied upon
Rule 70(1)(a) and (b) of Maharashtra Civil Services
(Joining Time, Foreign Service and Payments During
Suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules, 1981, while
negativing the claim of the petitioner for continuation in
service, increments and back wages.

9.       In the present case, the Corporation did not initiate a
departmental enquiry against the petitioner. In case, the
petitioner would have been terminated upon conducting the
departmental enquiry, then the respondents would have all
grounds to agitate even against reinstatement. However, as
the petitioner was terminated without conducting a
departmental enquiry only on the basis of judgment of the
Sessions Court convicting the petitioner, the respondents
would be bound by the judgment of the Appellate Authority
acquitting the petitioner. In light of that the consequences
would follow.          It is the fact that the petitioner could not

1    2004 (1) Bom.C.R. 396.

Gaikwad RD                                                              3/5
                                             28.WPNo.44852018(C).doc

perform his duties for the period from the date of conviction
by the Session Court and the date the petitioner was
reinstated.

10.    In light of that, it would be inappropriate on the part of
respondents/Corporation to deny the petitioner the beneft
of continuity in service. The petitioner would be entitled for
continuity in service and notional increments for the period
the petitioner was terminated and reinstated.                As the
petitioner could not perform his duties during the period the
petitioner         was    terminated   on   his    conviction    and
reinstatement, we are not inclined to give back wages to the
petitioner.

11.    In light of that, we pass the following order :

                                 ORDER

i) The respondents/Corporation shall grant continuity of service to the petitioner and all the notional increments that the petitioner would have been entitled to, if the petitioner was in service and the salary of the petitioner shall be fxed accordingly from the date the petitioner was reinstated that is the judgment delivered by this Court acquitting the petitioner i.e. 3rd July 2014.

ii) The further salary be calculated accordingly and so also the pensionary benefts.

iii) The aforesaid exercise shall be done within four months from today.

iv) Rule accordingly made absolute in the above terms.

Gaikwad RD 4/5

28.WPNo.44852018(C).doc

v) The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

                               (S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)             (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

            Digitally signed
            by RAJU
            DATTATRAYA
RAJU       GAIKWAD
DATTATRAYA
           Date:
GAIKWAD    2022.12.14
            17:12:37
            +0530




                               Gaikwad RD                                                            5/5