Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dhruv Kumar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8006
1 WA-1860-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 19th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 1860 of 2024
DHRUV KUMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
ORDER
Per: Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
1. This is an application on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of
delay.
2. There is delay of 69 days in filing the appeal.
3. It is contended that earlier counsel who was handling the writ petition
did not communicate the decision to the appellant as such he was not aware
of the writ petition having been disposed of. Subsequently, from the website
he became aware of the disposal of the writ petition and immediately
engaged the present counsel who filed the appeal.
4. We are satisfied that appellant has sufficiently explained the delay in
filing the appeal. Consequently the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
5. I.A. is allowed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8006
2 WA-1860-2024
6. Appellant impugns order dated 07.03.2024 whereby the writ petition filed
by the appellant seeking grant of back-wages has been dismissed.
7. Appellant during the relevant time was Assistant Engineer in the M.P.
State Electricity Board, Rewa Division and an FIR was registered against
him in the year 1995 and final report was filed under Section 326 of the IPC
and appellant had to face trial. Appellant was initially convicted under
Section 326 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous
imprisonment. On account of conviction of appellant, his services were
terminated and subsequently, an appeal was filed by the appellant and by a
judgment dated 13.02.2001, the sentence was modified and benefit of
probation was given to the appellant by the Sessions Court. Appellant
impugned the decision of the Sessions Court before this Court and ultimately
by order dated 10.04.2006, the Revision Petition was allowed and appellant
was acquitted of the charges under Section 326 of the IPC and thereafter
appellant was reinstated in service on 02.08.2006. The claim of the appellant
is for back-wages during the period the appellant was terminated and
reinstated.
8. Learned Single Judge relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of Union of India Vs. Jaipal Singh , (2004) 1 SCC 121 wherein a
decision of the Supreme Court in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore Vs.
Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board (1996) 11 SCC 603 was
referred to. The Supreme Court in the said cases held that there can be no
automatic payment of back-wages. The termination from service was on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8006
3 WA-1860-2024
account of the employee or public servant getting involved in a criminal case
and being convicted by the Trial Court even if he subsequently gets acquitted
by the Appellate Court, the employee or public servant is not automatically
entitled for payment of back-wages for the reasons that there is no fault of
the employer. Termination of an employee/public servant is a direct
consequence of conviction in criminal proceedings. The decisions in
Ranchhodji (supra) and Jaipal Singh (supra) have been followed in the
subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Corp. Mithilesh Kumar Vs.
Union of India (2020) 12 SCC 423.
9. We find that the view expressed by the learned Single Judge is in
consonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court and there is no
infirmity in the same. Appellant was initially convicted by a criminal court
and thus was terminated. Thereafter, on being found not guilty, he was
reinstated in service. The fact that appellant remained out of service, is not on
account of any action on the part of the department and as such the
department cannot be directed to pay the wages for the period when the
appellant was not in service.
10. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order or
any merit in the appeal. The appeal is consequently, dismissed.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE JUDGE
P/-
