http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: RANCHHODJI CHATURJI THAKORE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, GUJARATELECTRICITY BOARD, HIMMA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       28/10/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      This case  does not warrant interference for the reason that, admittedly,  the petitioner was charged for an offence under Section  302 read with 34 IPC for his involvement in a crime committed  on October  1, 1986. The Sessions Judge had convicted the  petitioner under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced  him to undergo imprisonment for life. On that basic the respondents had taken action to have him dismissed from service  since he  was working  as Junior  Clerk in the respondent-Electricity Board.  The petitioner challenged the validity of  the dismissal  order by  way of a special civil application filed  under Article  226 of  the  Constitution. Pending disposal,  the Division  Bench of  the High Court by its judgment  dated October  14,1992 acquitted  him  of  the offence. Consequently, while disposing of the writ petition, the  learned   single  judge   directed  the  respondent  to reinstate him  into  the  service  with  continuity  of  the service, but  denied back  wages. The  petitioner then filed letters Patent  Appeal No.319/93  which was dismissed by the impugned order  dated August  26,1993.  Thus,  this  special leave petition.      The reinstatement  of the  petitioner into  the service has already  been  ordered  by  the  High  Court.  The  only question is:  whether he  is entitled  to back wages? It was his conduct of involving himself in the crime that was taken into account for his not being in service of the respondent. Consequent  upon   his  acquittal,   he   is   entitled   to reinstatement for the reason that his service was terminated on the  basic of  the conviction  by operation of proviso to the statutory  rules applicable  the situation. The question of back  wages would  be considered  only if the respondents have taken  action by way of disciplinary proceeding and the action was  found to  be unsustainable  in law  and  he  was unlawfully prevented  from discharging  the duties.  In that context, his conduct becomes relevant, Each case requires to be considered  in his own backdrops. In this case, since the petitioner had  involved himself  in a  crime, though he was later acquitted,  he had disabled himself from rendering the service on  account of conviction and incarceration in jail.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to payment of  back wages.  The learned  single judge  and  the Division  Bench   have  not   committed  any  error  of  law warranting interference.      The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.