Ram Pratap vs State Home Departmentors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2793 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4151/2012

Ram Pratap S/o Shri Chellu Ram, aged about 58 years, R/o P.N.
48, Shriram Marg, Ridhi Sidhi Nagar, near Niwaru Byepass Pulia,
Jhotwara, Jaipur 302012. At present posted as Sub-Inspector,
Rajasthan Police, Police Line, Jaipur City, Jaipur.

                                                                      ....Petitioner

                                      Versus

1.   State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary to the
Government, Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.

2.   Director General Of Police, Police H.Q. Jaipur.

3.   Commissioner Of Police, Metropolitan City, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4.   Dy.    Commissioner            of     Police,       Jaipur    (East),   Police
Commissionerate, Jaipur City, Jaipur.

                                                                   ...Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.V. Nandwana, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.S. Naruka, Adv. for Mr. Rupin Kala, GC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment / Order

Reserved on 07/03/2022 Pronounced on 01/04/2022

1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India has been filed by the petitioner against the orders impugned

dated 04/04/2011 (Annexure-7) and 07/07/2011 (Annexure-9)

and for direction to the respondents to make payments of all

benefits including salary, annual grade increments and other

consequential benefits with interest @24% per annum.

(2 of 6) [CW-4151/2012]

2. Brief facts of the case as per the petitioner are that the

petitioner was working as Sub Inspector in Rajasthan Police

against whom one criminal case (no. 1049/2005) was registered

on the basis of charge-sheet filed under Section 384, 341/34 of

IPC in the FIR No.357/2005 dated 10/06/2005 alleging that on

10/06/2005, the petitioner along with other persons illegally

stopped one truck and tried to extort money by misuse of their

authority.

3. In the said criminal case, the learned trial court, after

conducting trial, acquitted the petitioner of the offence under

Section 341/34, 384 IPC vide judgment dated 25/01/2006 giving

benefit of doubt.

4. It has come on record that for the aforesaid delinquency, the

petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated

15/07/2005 (Annexure-3) but on account of the temporary

injunction granted by the learned Additional District Judge No.9,

Jaipur City, Jaipur, the said order of dismissal could not be given

effect to. After rejection/vacation of the temporary injunction on

28/01/2008 by the learned ADJ Court, an order dated 08/02/2008

(Annexure-4) was passed by the respondents giving effect to the

dismissal order dated 15/07/2005 from its date. Against the

dismissal order dated 15/07/2005, an appeal was preferred by the

petitioner before the Inspector General of Police, Jaipur Range-I,

Jaipur which was dismissed vide order dated 25/08/2008

(Annexure-6). Thereafter which a review petition was filed by the

petitioner under Rule 34 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA)

Rules, 1958, before His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan,

wherein it was held that:-

(3 of 6) [CW-4151/2012]

"In view of the findings of the judicial courts exonerating the delinquent, as also the finding that the invocation of summary procedures under rule 19(2) of CCA Rules, as has been done in this case, do not appear to be justified, the review petition is accepted and the orders of SP East Jaipur and IG Range-I Jaipur are set aside"

The review petition was accepted and the impugned orders by

which the petitioner was dismissed from service and the appellate

order rejecting his appeal were set aside vide order dated

04/03/2011 (Annexure-6)

5. In compliance of the order dated 04/03/2011 passed by His

Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan, the respondents passed an

order dated 04/04/2011 (Annexure-7) by which though the

petitioner was reinstated, however, the back wages for the

intervening period were denied on the basis of 'no work no pay'.

Against the order dated 04/04/2011, the petitioner preferred an

appeal before the Commissioner of Police so far as denial of back

wages was concerned, but the appeal was dismissed vide order

dated 07/07/2011 (Annexure-9) by relying upon judgment of

Division Bench of this Court dated 05/02/2009 passed in Udai

Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (DB Civil Special Appal

No.339/1999 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.3818/1998) on the

principle of 'no work no pay'.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of

coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Dr. Prabhat Kadavat

Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2015(1) WLC (Raj.) 299

wherein it was held that even if the exoneration/acquittal is on

account of benefit of doubt, in that case also, the petitioner is

entitled for reinstatement and back wages with all consequential

benefits.

(4 of 6) [CW-4151/2012]

7. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted

that the order passed by His Excellency in review petition as well

as the order passed by the competent court are qua acquitting the

petitioner on benefit of doubt. The petitioner was performing

uniformed duties under disciplined force and the acquittal on the

ground of benefit of doubt is not honourable and clean. The

petitioner's conduct will always be under cloud. Moreover, the

petitioner has neither performed any work and nor rendered any

duty during intervening period and therefore, on the principle of

'no work no pay', the petitioner will not be entitled for any back

wages. The authorities have passed a justified order in compliance

with the order passed by His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan

in review petition and the action of the respondents is also in

conformity with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Methu Meda (Civil Appeal No.6238

of 2021), decided on 06/10/2021 reported in (2022) 1 SCC

1 wherein it has been held as under:-

"22. As discussed hereinabove, the law is well- settled. If a person is acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt, from the charge of an offence involving moral turpitude or because the witnesses turned hostile, it would not automatically entitle him for the employment, that too in disciplined force. The employer is having a right to consider his candidature in terms of the circulars issued by the Screening Committee. The mere disclosure of the offences alleged and the result of the trial is not sufficient. In the said situation, the employer cannot be compelled to give appointment to the candidate. Both the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court have not considered the said legal position, as discussed above in the orders impugned. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 3897 of 2013 and Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1090 of 2013 are not sustainable in law, as discussed herein above."

(5 of 6) [CW-4151/2012]

8. This Court has gone through the contentions advanced by

respective counsels, records of the writ petition as well as

judgments cited at bar.

9. In the case in hand, it is an admitted position that the

petitioner was working as a Sub Inspector which is a discipline

and uniformed post for the security of public at large. He was

alleged of the charges wherein he and his colleagues restrained a

truck driver and tried to extort money out of him. In the criminal

case, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges giving him

benefit of doubt. In review jurisdiction, His Excellency the

Governor of Rajasthan has given a categorical direction, after

considering the findings of the judicial court, allowing the review

petition of the petitioner and setting aside the orders of dismissal

as well as the appellate order. It is also an admitted fact that the

petitioner was neither on duty nor had rendered any work during

the intervening period but without giving him any opportunity of

hearing and without considering his case, even after passing the

order dt.04/03/2011 by the Hon'ble Governor, the order dated

04/04/2011 was passed by the respondents by which, though he

was reinstated but the back wages were denied and the appeal

was also dismissed vide order dated 07/07/2011 in the same

manner.

10. In view thereof, the orders impugned have been passed by

the respondents without following the principles of natural justice

as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. Once the order

has been passed by the Hon'ble Governor allowing the review

petition of the petitioner, the directions given in the order of

review could not have been interfered with or interpreted by the

(6 of 6) [CW-4151/2012]

respondents in their own manner. Hence, the orders impugned are

without authority of law as no other interpretation, other than in

the review order, was within the domain of the respondents.

11. Thus, the orders impugned so far as the back wages has

been denied to the petitioner are without jurisdiction and without

authority of law. The judgments cited by the respondents of the

Apex Court in Methu Meda (supra) pertains to recruitment and

the acquittal was not reviewed by the Governor. Hence the same

is distinguishable. Further, relying upon coordinate Bench

judgment of this Court in Dr. Prabhat Kadavat (supra), this

Court is of the view that even if the acquittal has been made

giving benefit of doubt, then also the petitioner was entitled to be

reinstated with back wages and other consequential benefits

specially when the order under review passed by the Governor is

not expressly debarring the same.

12. In view of above discussions, the instant writ petition is

allowed. The orders impugned passed by the respondents, so far

as the petitioner has been denied the benefit of back wages, are

hereby quashed and set aside and the petitioner is held entitled to

be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits including

back wages. The compliance of this order be made by the

respondents within a period of three months of receipt of certified

copy of this order in their office. All pending applications also

stand disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

Raghu/24

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)