Santosh Singh Yadav vs M.P. Power Generating Company ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6368 MP

     THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
               W.P.No.19803/2021
       (Santosh Singh Ydadav Vs. M.P.Power Generating Company & others)


Jabalpur, Dated : 04/10/2021
     Shri Priyanshu Khan, counsel for the petitioner.

     Shri Rahul Diwakar with Shri Aman Gupta, counsel for

respondents.

Heard on the question of admission.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, asking relief therein that the

respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to join at the

same place, where he was working before terminating his

services, and also directed to pay him salary for the period in

which respondents did not take decision, even after acquittal of

the petitioner, and direction issued by this Court in

W.P.No.11321/2019, whereby authority has been directed to

reinstate the petitioner in service.

The petitioner was terminated from service in pursuance

to the judgment dated 07/09/2018 (Annexure-P-1) passed by

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur in a case

No.4115508/2006, wherein the petitioner was convicted for the

offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC and sentenced to

undergo RI for two years with fine of Rs.500/-and under Section 323, read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to

undergo RI for three months with fine of Rs.500/- with default

stipulation.

Thereafter, in an appeal preferred by the petitioner the

conviction has been suspended and then the petitioner filed a

petition i.e W.P.No.11321/2019 before the High Court. The

High Court by order dated 24/02/2021 (Annexure-P-4) has

quashed the order of termination of the petitioner. In view of

the order passed by the High Court, the respondent-authority

passed an order on 07/07/2021 (Annexure-P-6) reinstating the

petitioner in service, and also post him to some other place, but

not to a place from where he has been terminated.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

should be allowed to perform the duties at the same place,

from where he has been terminated, and the reinstatement

should be immediately after the order of his acquittal.

However, I am not convinced with the submissions made

by counsel for the petitioner, for the reason that the petitioner

has not been acquitted from the criminal charges. There is no

law putting any embargo upon the employer to reinstate the

petitioner at the same place, from where he has been

terminated. Secondly, after the order passed by the High Court setting-aside the order of termination, authority without

wasting much time has taken a decision, and without

inordinate delay the petitioner has been reinstated in service, in

the month of July, therefore, his claim for payment of salary

for the intervening period i.e from the date of suspension of

sentence till the order of reinstatement is not justified.

Petition is therefore without any substance and it is

accordingly dismissed.

(Sanjay Dwivedi) Judge

sushma

SUSHMA Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=06cc7ec7869e71b23c61580e1aaad85481f7ea48cd875c18 e5a68787947df0c5,

KUSHWAHA pseudonym=3162691BECDE33282E19E0CEBA20524E31482089, serialNumber=0844205F54108DDA40342AD423EF1D3DE29D4F5E 3FC94CC59B05D91905B104C7, cn=SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Date: 2021.10.07 12:37:18 +05'30'