- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3459-DB WA No. 1509 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 1509 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. DR. U.R.KANTHA RAJU, S/O RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANISER, MYSURU CITY CORPORATION, MYSURU. RESIDING AT NO.1W/121, BHOGADI ROAD, OPP. TO RIE QUARTERS GATE, MANASA GANGOTHRI POST, MYSURU-570006 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA H.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9TH FLOOR, VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWERS, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3459-DB WA No. 1509 of 2025 3. THE COMMISSIONER, MYSURU CITY CORPORATION, MYSURU-570001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. GAURAV G.K, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04/08/2025 PASSED IN WP NO.16764/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND ALLOW THE WP NO.16764/2025 FILED BY THE APPELLANT, ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present writ appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16764/2025 whereby the appellant's claim for backwages for the period 22.11.2016 to 25.06.2024 has been denied on the ground that the he was dismissed from the service upon conviction in Crime No.271/1998 under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Sessions Court vide judgment and order dated 22.11.2016 convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences. This Court vide judgment - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3459-DB WA No. 1509 of 2025 and order dated 30.01.2024 acquitted the appellant and after acquittal he has been reinstated into service vide order dated 25.06.2024. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant does not press the relief for the back wages for the said period, however, he should be granted continuity of service and the said period should be treated as on service for the other purposes and not for the purpose of the back wages. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3- Corporation does not dispute the facts. However, he has submitted that the Corporation would consider the claim of the appellant for continuity of service and for promotion from the date on which his juniors got promoted in the meantime. 4. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The proposition of law regarding reinstatement and the claim for back wages upon conviction, acquittal and subsequent reinstatement in appeal is no longer res integra. An employee dismissed from service upon conviction and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3459-DB WA No. 1509 of 2025 subsequently reinstated upon acquittal on appeal would not be entitled to backwages for the period between dismissal and reinstatement. However, the said period would be counted towards his total service. 6. The aforesaid proposition of law was laid down in the case of Union of India and Others v. Jaipal Singh reported in (2004) 1 SCC 121. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said judgment which are relevant are extracted here below: "4. On a careful consideration of the matter and the materials on record, including the judgment and orders brought to our notice, we are of the view that it is well accepted that an order rejecting a special leave petition at the threshold without detailed reasons therefor does not constitute any declaration of law by this Court or constitute a binding precedent. Per contra, the decision relied upon by the appellant is one on merits and for reasons specifically recorded therefor it operates as a binding precedent as well. On going through the same, we are in respectful agreement with the view taken in Ranchhodji [(1996) 11 SCC 603 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 491] . If prosecution, which ultimately resulted in acquittal of the person concerned was at the behest of or by the department itself, perhaps different considerations may arise. On the other hand, if as a citizen the employee or a public servant got involved in a criminal case and if after initial conviction by the trial court, he gets acquittal on appeal subsequently, the department cannot in any manner be found fault with for having kept him out of service, since the law obliges a person convicted of an offence to be so kept out and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3459-DB WA No. 1509 of 2025 not to be retained in service. Consequently, the reasons given in the decision relied upon, for the appellants are not only convincing but are in consonance with reasonableness as well. Though exception taken to that part of the order directing reinstatement cannot be sustained and the respondent has to be reinstated in service, for the reason that the earlier discharge was on account of those criminal proceedings and conviction only, the appellants are well within their rights to deny back wages to the respondent for the period he was not in service. The appellants cannot be made liable to pay for the period for which they could not avail of the services of the respondent. The High Court, in our view, committed a grave error, in allowing back wages also, without adverting to all such relevant aspects and considerations. Consequently, the order of the High Court insofar as it directed payment of back wages is liable to be and is hereby set aside. 5. The respondent will be entitled to back wages from the date of acquittal and except for the purpose of denying the respondent actual payment of back wages, that period also will be counted as period of service, without any break. The reinstatement, if not already done, in terms of the order of the High Court will be done within thirty days from today." 7. Thus, though the appellant is not entitled to back wages for the period during which he remained out of service due to his dismissal on conviction till his reinstatement, he is entitled for continuity of service. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3459-DB WA No. 1509 of 2025 8. With the aforesaid clarification, we dispose of this writ appeal. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22