1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NOS.9601-9602 OF 2010 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C)NOS.8440-8441  OF 2009)  

CORP. MITHILESH KUMAR @MITHILESH SINGH            Appellant(s)

                VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                             Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Leave granted. Heard  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  and  learned  

Additional Solicitor General for the respondent- Union of India.

Brief  facts  which  are  necessary  to  dispose  of  these  

appeals are recapitulated as under :

The  appellant  was  enrolled  as  Combatant  Member  of  the  

Indian Air Force on 12.09.1986.   

The  appellant  was  convicted  in  a  criminal  case  under  

Sections 302/324/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code and was awarded  

life imprisonment by the trial Court and consequently the appellant  

was removed from service by the Chief of Air Staff on 22.03.1994.

The appellant filed a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and  

227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the Order of  

Removal dated 28.03.1998 and that the same be declared as illegal,  

violative of rules and against the principles of natural justice.  

The appellant also filed an appeal against his conviction and he was  

acquitted by the High Court on 22.02.2007. On his representation,  

the appellant was reinstated in service with effect from 09.04.1994

2

vide order dated 30.10.2007 without back-wages. It may be pertinent  

to mention here that the appellant's initial term of engagement was  

for 20 years with pensionary benefits.  Admittedly, this period of  

initial term of 20 years was also over.

The short grievance articulated by the appellant was that  

alongwith reinstatement, he should have been given back-wages and  

consequential relief. The appellant failed to place reliance on any  

judgment of this Court to support his submission.

Ms.Indira Jaisingh, learned Additional Solicitor General  

appearing for the Union of India has submitted that the impugned  

judgment of the High Court requires no interference and the legal  

position as focused by the appellant is no longer res integra. She  

placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Ranchhodji Chaturji  

Thakore Vs.  Superintendent  Engineer,  Gujarat  Electricity  Board,  

Himmatnagar (Gujarat) & Anr., (1996) 11 SCC p.603.  In this case  

also the appellant was convicted under Section 302 read with Section  

34  of  the  I.P.C.  and  on  that  basis  he  was  dismissed  from  the  

service. The appellant approached the High Court by filing an appeal  

against the order of conviction and in that appeal he was acquitted  

of the offence.  The respondent had reinstated the appellant in  

service but denied the back-wages. This Court examined this position  

and observed that “....Consequent upon his acquittal, he is entitled  

to reinstatement for the reason that his service was terminated on  

the basis of the conviction by operation of proviso to the statutory  

rules applicable to the situation. The question of back wages would  

be considered only if the respondents had taken action by way of

3

disciplinary  proceedings  and  the  action  was  found  to  be  

unsustainable  in  law  and  he  was  unlawfully  prevented  from  

discharging the duties....”.  

Learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  has  also  placed  

reliance on a judgment of this Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs.  

Jaipal Singh, (2004) 1 SCC p.121. In this case also the initial  

conviction was converted into acquittal by the trial Court.  This  

Court observed that “....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 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....”

Reliance was also placed on the decision in  Baldev Singh  

Vs.  Union of India & Ors., (2005) 8 SCC p.747.  This Court has  

reiterated the same principle that merely because there has been an  

acquittal does not automatically entitle the appellant to get the  

consequential benefits.  

In view of the consistent legal position, we cannot find  

any fault with the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appeals,

4

being devoid of any merit are, accordingly, dismissed. The parties  

are directed to bear their respective costs.

...................J. (DALVEER BHANDARI)

...................J. (DEEPAK VERMA)

NEW DELHI; 9TH NOVEMBER, 2010