BANSHI DHAR versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 78 · Decided: 31-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
BANSHIDHAR 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 31, 2006 
(S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Backwages-Entitlement of-Workman placed on suspension pursuant 
to allegation of grave criminal misconduct-On conviction by Trial Court, 
dismissed-Acquittal by Appellate Court, though hieanwhile workman reached 
age of superannuation-Held: Entitlement to back wages not automatic even 
when order of dismissal found invalid-On facts, not a fit case for grant of 
back wages having regard to the fact that the workman had been paid retiral 
D benefits-Prevention of Corruption Act-Section 5(J)(d) Penal Code, 1860-
Section 161. 
Appellant was placed under suspension on allegations of grave criminal ' 
misconduct. His services were subsequently dispensed with as he was convicted 
by a Trial Court under Section S(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 
read with Section 161, IPC. Appellant was h6wever acquitted by the Appellate 
Court, though on the date of passing of the judgment of acquith•I, Appellant 
had already reached his age of superannuation. 
Appellant filed writ petition before the High Court which, though 
denying him back wages, permitted him to claim pensionary benefits before 
the concerned authority. On application of the Appellant, he was directed to 
be paid his entire pensionary benefits by the said authority. 
The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is 
whether in a situation of this nature, Appellant is entitled to payment of back 
wages. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is now a trite law that judgment of acquittal itself would not 
have exonerated him of the charges levelled against him. He could have been 
78 
I , 
' • 
I 
BANSHI DHAR v. ST ATE OF RA.JASTHAN 
79 
proceeded against in a departmental proceeding. Departmental proceedings, A 
however, could not bl! held as on the date of passing of the judgment of acquittal, 
he had already reached his age of superannuation. 182-G-H; 83-AI 
Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore v. S. Mani and Ors .. 120051 
5 SCC 100 and Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Narender Singh, 120061 
4 sec 265, relied on. 
B 
2.1. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to grant to back 
wages. Each case has to be determined on its own facts. 182-FI 
2.2. The High Court refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. 
There is no reason for this Court to take a different view. Grant of back wages, C 
it is well settled, is not automatic. Even in cases where principles of natural 
justice have been held to have not been complied with, while issuing a direction 
of reinstatement, this Court had directed placing of the delinquent employee 
under suspension. Even in relation to the industrial disputes, this Court, in 
many judgments, has held that back wages need not be granted automatically D 
although the order of termination passed against the concerned workman was 
found to be invalid. The instant case is not a fit case, having regard to the fact 
that the appellant has been paid the retiral benefits, where this Court should 
interfere. 183-C; 84-E-GI 
Managing Director, EC/l, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karunakar and E 
Ors., [1993) 4 SCC 727; South Bengal State Transport Corpn. v. Sapan Kumar 
Mitra and Ors., [20061 2 SCC 584; UP. State Brassware Corpn. ltd and 
Anr. v. Uday Narain Pandey, [2006) 1 SCC 479 and Municipal Council, 
Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar, (2006) 5 SCC 173, relied on. 
Ranchhodji Chatz11]i Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat F 
Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) and Anr., [1996[ 11SCC603; Union 
of India and Ors. v. Jaipal Singh, [2004) 1SCC121 and Baldev Singh v. Union 
of India and Ors., [2005[ 8 SCC 767, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4400 of2005. 
From the Judgment and Final Order dated l.8.2003 of the High Court of 
Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 
225/2003. 
K.S. Bhati for the Appellant. 
G 
G 
80 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A 
Navin Kumar Singh (for Aruneshwar Gupta) for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. Appellant was a Patwari working at village Minda in the 
year 1976. On an allegation that he had sought illegal gratification, on or 
B about 13.7.1976, a complaint was lodged in the office of Deputy Superintendent 
of Police, Anti-Corruption, Jaipur (Rural) that the appellant had asked for 
illegal gratification. A raidin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.