1 2025:CGHC:10052 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7125 of 2018 1 - Govind Deshmukh S/o Late S. L. Deshmukh Aged About 29 Years R/o Bijli Office Colony, Beejapur, District- Beejapur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited An Enterprise Of Govt. Of Chhattisgarh And A Successor Company Of Cseb, Through Its Managing Director 2 - The Executive Director (Ma San.) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Superintending Engineer (Circle) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Executive Engineer Sancha/sandha Division, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Sandeep Shrivastava, Advocate along with Ms. Arya Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents : Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.02.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “a. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- records of the court below pertaining to the case of the petitioner for perusal of this Hon'ble Court. b. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 20.4.2018 (Annexure P-1) and direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages from the date of his acquittal till the actual date of reinstatement and also to grant benefit of past service for the purpose of seniority etc. in the interest of justice. c. Cost of the proceedings. d. Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Grade-III under the respondents and at the relevant time, he was posted at Kanker in the office of Executive Engineer. He would further submit that a complaint was made against the petitioner regarding his involvement in the misappropriation of the State Exchequer to the tune of Rs.12,41,017/- and an FIR was registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 409 & 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. He would contend that the petitioner was convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.116 of 2013, vide judgment dated 9.7.2013. However, the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Court was allowed vide judgment dated 5.1.2017. He would further contend that without conducting any departmental enquiry, the petitioner was removed from services by respondent No.2 / Executive Engineer vide order dated 24.3.2014. He would further submit that since the petitioner has already been 3 acquitted by the learned Sessions Court and the acquittal appeal preferred by the State before the High Court has been dismissed vide order dated 25.11.2024, a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would further submit that there were serious allegations with regard to embezzlement against the petitioner and he was convicted by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel appearing for the State would admit the fact that the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Sessions Court. He would also submit that it is for the employer to consider the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement. He would fairly submit that if the petitioner makes a representation before the respondent authorities, an appropriate decision would be taken. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on the record. 5. Initially, the petitioner was working with the respondents on the post of Assistant Grade-III posted at the L.T. Billing Centre, Divisional Office, Kanker. An FIR was registered against him, and a criminal case was lodged. He was convicted by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.116 of 2013 vide judgment dated 9.7.2013 for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 409 & 420 of IPC. The petitioner preferred an appeal and he was acquitted. A perusal of the order would show that it was a -4- clean acquittal. The State preferred an acquittal appeal, which has already been dismissed vide order 25.11.2024. 6. Admittedly, no departmental enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was removed from services due to the registration of the FIR and conviction in the criminal case. As the petitioner has already been acquitted by the learned Sessions Court, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement in service. The orders rejecting the representations made by the petitioner are hereby quashed. The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondent authorities within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With regard to back-wages, the petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation before the Competent Authority indicating the fact that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere. In turn, the authority concerned is directed to decide the representation within a period of 120 days. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi