UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus JAIPAL SINGH

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 115 · Decided: 03-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU, ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF (NOIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
JAIPAL SINGH 
NOVEMBER 3, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Back wages-(]overnment servant convicted by trial court of an offence 
uls 302134 /PC-Dismissal from service-On appeal, conviction set aside- C 
Writ petition by employee seeking reinstatement and fall back wages-Allowed 
by High Court-Held, though in the event of prosecution at the behest or by 
the department itself perhaps different considerations may arise, if an employee 
or a public servant got involved in a criminal case and if after initial conviction 
by trial court he gets acquittal on appeal subsequently, department cannot in D 
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 not to be 
retained in service-Although, the employee has to be reinstated in service for 
the reason that the earlier discharge was on.account of criminal proceedings 
and conviction only, yet department will be well within its rights to deny back 
wages to the employee for the period he was not in service-Department E 
cannot be made liable to pay for the period for which it could not avail of the 
services of the employee..:.....Employee will be entitled to back wages from the 
date of acquittal and except for the purpose of denying him actual payment 
of back wages, that period also will be counted as period of service without 
any break. 
F 
Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat 
Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) and Anr., (19961 11 SCC 603, 
relied on. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Articles 136 and 141-Held, an order rejecting a special leave petition 
at the threshold without detailed reasons therefor does neither constitute any 
declaration of law by Supreme Court nor a binding precedent-Precedent. 
I 15 
G 
H 
116 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8565 of2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.200 I of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 12929 of 1999. 
Raju Ramachandra, Additional Solicitor General, R.C. Verma, Mukesh 
B Verma, Mrs. Sushnia Suri and B.V. Balaram Das for the Appellants. 
Ranbir Singh Yadav for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
C 
Leave granted. 
The above appeal has been filed against the order of the Division 
Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Chandigarh dated 
30.10.2001 in CWP No. 12929 of 1999 whereunder the Division Bench has 
allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents and granted relief, as prayed 
D for, directing re-instalment of the respondent with full back wages and 
consequential benefits. The respondent was involved in a criminal case and 
he was charge-sheeted for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 
of the IPC along with his brother and though he was convicted by the learned 
Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari for the same by a judgment dated 
E 05.03.1997, on further appeal, before the High Court, the Division Bench of 
the High Court returned a verdict of acquittal. As a consequence thereof, 
since, he was not re-instated inspite of the order of acquittal, he moved the 
High Court and obtained orders, as noticed supra. Aggrieved, the appellants 
have come before this Court. 
F 
Heard Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned Additional S_olicitor General 
appearing for the appellants, who placed strong reliance upon the decision of 
this Court in [1996] 11 SCC 603: Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. 
Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) 
and Anr. wherein this Court, in a case identical to the facts of the present 
case, has chosen to order only re-instatement but denied back-wages on the 
G ground that the department was in noway concerned with the criminal case 
and, therefore, cannot be saddled with liability also for back wages for the 
period when he was out of service during/after conviction suffered by the. 
respondent in the criminal case. Per contra, Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, learned 
counsel for the respondent sought to place reliance upon an order of this 
H Court dismissing the special leave petition filed summarily against the 
..... 
• 
U.O.l. v. JAIPAL SINGH 
1I7 
judgment of the very same High Court dated 19 .07 .200 I in CWP No. I 020 I A 
of 2000. Learned counsel for the respondent, by inviting our attention to the 
judgment of the High Court in that case

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.