1 2025:CGHC:28835-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 418 of 2025 1 - Ram Prasad Nayak S/o Bhagbali Nayak Aged About 70 Years R/o Shanti Vihar Colony, Dangniya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Energy, Mantralya Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through Managing Director (Cspdcl), Dangniya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company (Civil- Distribution), Cercal C-6, Gudiyari Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Surya Kanwalkar Dangi, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No. 2 : Dr. Veena Nair, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30/06/2025 1. Heard Ms. Surya Kanwalkar Dangi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.06.30 18:23:01 +0530 2 heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State and Dr. Veena Nair, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant with the following prayer: "(I) That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 15.04.2025 passed in WPS No. 1473/2021. (ii) That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant relief to the petitioner as prayed by it para 10 of the WPS No. 1473/2021. (iii) That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant any other relief deem fit in the interest of justice. " 3. The present writ appeal filed against the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1473/2021, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed as the petitioner is not entitled for back wages. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was initially appointed in the Electricity board in the year 1977. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Supervisor (Civil) in the year 1995. According, to the appellant one Manshukh Lal made a complaint to the Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur against the Additional Superintendent Engineer and the appellant in respect of illegal demand of bribe and in the said proceeding, the FIR was registered for offence under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d), 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On account of registration of FIR, the appellant has been placed under suspension by order dated 12.10.2007. Since the trial could not be concluded within a period of 3 years the suspension period has been revoked by order dated 04.09.2010. In the meantime, after completion of trial, the appellant has been convicted by the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Raipur, C.G. The said conviction has been challenged by the appellant before this Court in Cr. A. No. 1153/2012. Owing to conviction imposed by 3 the Trial Court, the appellant has been terminated from the services by order dated 01.04.2013. The Cr. A No. 1153/2012 has been allowed by this court vide judgment dated 08.05.2020 and the appellant has been acquitted from the charges. In the meanwhile, the appellant retried from service on 31-8-2018. Thus, after acquittal the appellant made several representations before the authorities seeking back-wages. However, by the order impugned the representation of the appellant has been rejected and appellant was declined to grant back-wages. Thereafter, the appellant has filed his writ petition bearing WPS No. 1473/2021 before the learned Single Judge of this Court and after hearing the case of the appellant, the Hon’ble Single Judge has dismissed the petition vide order dated 15.04.2025. While dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the learned Single Judge has erred in relying Rule 54-B of Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules. The Rule 54-B governs cases of suspension and has no application where the dismissal from service is followed by acquittal and reinstatement. The applicable rule is Fundamental Rule-54, which mandates full back wages in case of acquittal, unless delay in termination of proceedings is attributable to the employee. 5. After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the writ appellant prays for withdrawal of of the writ appeal with liberty to approach before the learned Single Judge to take recourse to law available to him. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the writ appellant and under the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the writ appellant to take recourse to law before the learned Single Judge. 7. With the aforesaid liberty the present writ appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika