APHC010469712012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 31834 OF 2012 Between: Choppala Sampath Rao …Petitioner AND The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit (Ministry of Home Affairs), Visakhapatnam And another. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Jyothi Prasad Counsel for the Respondents: Smt.M.Uma Devi Ld. Central Govt. Counsel The Court made the following order: 1. The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 21.01.2008, whereby he was denied consequential benefits including back wages and seniority from the date of his removal from service till the date of reinstatement. 2. The petitioner, while working as a constable in the respondent establishment, was placed under suspension on 16.08.2000 as a case under Sections 306 and 498-A I.P.C. was registered against him. The -2- W.P. No.31834 of 2012 petitioner was tried in S.C. No.155 of 2000 by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam and sentenced to suffer three years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. and to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 28.04.2002, proposing to remove the petitioner from service on account of his conviction. Aggrieved by the said show cause notice, the petitioner filed W.P. No.9238 of 2002, which was rendered infructuous on account of the order of removal dated 29.07.2002. The petitioner filed Crl.A. No.202 of 2002 before this Court, challenging the conviction and sentence in S.C. no.155 of 2000. This Court, vide judgment dt.19.01.2007, allowed the criminal appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities and sought for reinstatement into service. The petitioner also claimed back wages from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement. The respondents, vide proceedings dated 21.01.2008, reinstated the petitioner into service, however denied granting any consequential benefits including back wages and seniority from the date of his removal from the service. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner has been acquitted and such acquittal is a clean acquittal, the -3- W.P. No.31834 of 2012 respondents could not have withheld grant of back wages. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not permitted to attend to duty on account of conviction and when the conviction was set aside, the order of termination would have to be rendered irrational and illegal and as such, the petitioner is entitled for back wages. 4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was granted back wages from the date of acquittal and that the order of removal dt.29.07.2002 was passed in accordance with Rule 39(i) of C.I.S.F. Rules 2001. It is also submitted by the learned standing counsel that the respondents have passed a well reasoned award granting back wages from 19.01.2007 i.e. date of judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters Narendra Pratap Narain Singh and another v. State of U.P.1, Ranchhodj Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) and another2, Union of India and others v. Jaipal Singh3 and Baldev Singh v. Union of India and others4, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the employee who was dismissed from service on account of his conviction in a criminal court for his involvement in a 1 AIR 1991 SC 1394 2 (1996) 11 SCC 603 3 AIR 2004 SC 1005 4 (2005) 8 SCC 747 -4- W.P. No.31834 of 2012 criminal case and subsequently reinstated after being acquitted in the appellate court cannot seek back wages for the period during which he was not on duty. 5. 5. Considering the proposition of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present set of facts and circumstances would also fall within the teeth of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner would not be entitled to claim any back wages for the period during which he was not in service or removed from service on account of his conviction in a criminal case. The act of the respondents in releasing the back wages from 19.01.2007 i.e. the date on which the petitioner was acquitted in a criminal appeal is justified and as such, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the impugned proceedings. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without costs. 7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH. N BV