Inderjeet Singh, Driver, ... vs Delhi Transport Corporation
2011 Latest Caselaw 2205 Del

                                                                           REPORTABLE

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      Writ Petition (Civil) No. 499/2011

                                               Reserved on: 5th April, 2011
%                                          Date of Decision: 26th April, 2011

INDERJEET SINGH, DRIVER,
B.No.17896, GHD.                                     ....Petitioner
                Through Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Anil Mittal,
                        Advocates

                       VERSUS

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION                                                ....Respondent
             Through Mr. J. S. Bhasin, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                                 Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?                 Yes.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

Inderjeet Singh, petitioner had impugned the order dated 19th November,

2010, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New

Delhi (Tribunal, for short), dismissing his OA 3735/2010. During the course of

arguments, the appellant has confined his prayer to claim for back wages with

effect from 22nd November, 2004 when he was acquitted by the High Court till

the order of reinstatement was passed by the Respondent, Delhi Transport

Corporation (DTC) on 5th June, 2007.

2. By the impugned order dated 19th November, 2010, back wages for the

said period have been denied and the order dated 11th August, 2010 passed by

the respondent has been upheld.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver with the respondent on 15 th

October, 1989.

4. FIR No. 76/98 was registered for murder of one Hemant on 24 th June,

1998 and the petitioner was arrested. On 26th August, 1998, the petitioner was

placed under suspension with effect from 25th June, 1998. The petitioner was

released on bail on 1st December, 1999 and the order of suspension was revoked

and the petitioner was allowed to resume duty on 12th January, 2000. By the

judgment dated 23rd July, 2000, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to

10 years rigorous imprisonment.

5. The petitioner had informed the respondent vide letter dated 4th October,

2002, about his conviction and that he had filed an appeal. Show cause notice

dated 30th April, 2004 was issued why the petitioner should not be dismissed

from service on account of his conviction. The petitioner at that time was

lodged in Tihar Jail, submitted his reply stating, inter alia, that his appeal was

pending. By order dated 20th May, 2004, the petitioner was dismissed from

service.

6. By judgment dated 22nd November, 2004, the appeal was accepted by the

High Court and the petitioner was acquitted. The petitioner vide letter dated 6th

December, 2004, informed the respondent about his acquittal and asked them to

reinstate him in service with full back wages. The respondent, however, did not

act on the said request and per force the petitioner filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.

22777/2005. During the pendency of the said writ petition, vide order dated 5 th

June, 2007, the petitioner was reinstated in service but without back wages from

the date of dismissal i.e. 20th May, 2004 till reinstatement 5th June, 2007.

However, this period was not to be treated as a break in service.

7. The aforesaid writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal and was

numbered as 1286/2009. The said petition was disposed of with liberty to the

petitioner to challenge the order dated 5th June, 2007. This order was challenged

in OA No. 2722/2009, in which the impugned order has been passed.

8. Arrest and subsequent conviction of the petitioner in the criminal case

was not as a result of any proceedings initiated by the respondent. Conviction

was not attributable to the respondent. It is now well settled that if service of a

government employee is terminated because of his conviction, but he is

reinstated after his acquittal by the appellate court, he is not entitled to back

wages as a matter of right. (See Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v.

Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar

(Gujarat) and Anr. 1996 (11) SCC 603; Krishnakant Raghunath

Bibhavnekar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1997 (3) SCC 636; Hukmi

Chand v. Jhabua Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Jhabua (M.P.) and Anr.

1998 (2) SCC 291; Union of India and Ors. v. Jaipal Singh 2004 (1) SCC

121; Naresh Ahlawat versus Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited 131

(2006) DLT 46 (DB).)

9. However, the question in the present case is different. The aforesaid

decisions will be applicable as far as period upto 22nd November, 2004 i.e. the

date on which the petitioner was acquitted by the High Court. But there is a gap

between the said date and that of reinstatement of the petitioner vide order dated

5th June, 2007. There is delay of two and a half years. The respondent was

required to and should have explained this time gap and the delay. There is no

explanation for this delay. It is not even claimed that this delay is attributable to

the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner had written letter dated 6 th December,

2004 informing the respondent about his acquittal by the High Court vide

judgment dated 22nd November, 2004. Respondent should have acted

immediately thereafter and reinstated the petitioner. Albeit, the petitioner was

compelled to file a writ petition and only thereafter the respondent acted. The

delay and laches in passing the order of reinstatement on 5th June, 2007 cannot

be justified. The said lapse and blame are not attributed to the petitioner and

cannot be a ground to deny back wages for this period between, 22 nd November,

2004 to 5th June, 2007.

10. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to back wages with effect from 1st

January, 2005 till 5th June, 2007. The date of 1st January, 2005 has been fixed

keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner had informed the respondent about

his acquittal vide letter dated 6th December, 2004. The aforesaid back wages

will be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order

with interest @ 8% from the date back wages became due till payment is made.

The petitioner is also entitled to costs, of Rs.10,000/-. The writ petition stands

disposed of accordingly.

(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE

( DIPAK MISRA ) CHIEF JUSTICE

April 26, 2011 kkb