Employee acquitted after conviction not entitled to back wages, rules HC

Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that an employee who was involved in a criminal case but was acquitted later is not entitled to back wages, as he disabled himself from rendering the service due to the conviction or incarceration in jail.

The ruling came in response to a writ petition challenging an order dated Feb 5, 2021, by which the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL) declined to grant back wages to the petitioner. The petitioner was initially appointed to the Electricity Board in 1977 and later promoted to the post of supervisor (civil) in 1995. According to the petitioner, an individual filed a complaint with the anti-corruption bureau, Raipur, against the additional superintendent engineer and the petitioner, alleging an illegal demand for a bribe. An FIR was registered under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d), and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, following the complaint. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 12 Oct 2007 due to the FIR. The suspension was revoked on Sept 4, 2010, as the trial could not be concluded within three years.

The petitioner was convicted by the Court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, after the trial. This conviction led to his termination from service on April 1, 2013. The petitioner challenged the conviction in Criminal Appeal, and the high court allowed the appeal on May 8, 2020, acquitting him of all charges. In the interim, the petitioner retired from service on Aug 31, 2018. Following his acquittal, the petitioner made several representations to the authorities seeking back wages, which were rejected, leading to the writ petition.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner is entitled to back wages under Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules, contending that the impugned order should be set aside and the writ petition allowed. The counsel cited previous decisions of the court in Arun Kumar Sharma Vs. State of C.G. and Abdul Rahman Ahmed Vs. State of C.G.

The respondents' counsel argued that Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules is not applicable in the petitioner's case, as he was not placed under suspension and reinstated. The counsel contended that the petitioner was dismissed from service following his conviction by the criminal court and relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar, to argue that the petitioner is not entitled to back wages.

The Single Bench of the High Court, presided by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, observed that Rule 54-B is not applicable in the petitioner's case, as he was terminated from service due to conviction and not reinstated after suspension. The court referred to the MP High Court in Munnalal Mishra v. Union of India and others, which held that Fundamental Rules 54, 54-A & 54-B do not apply when a govt servant is dismissed or removed due to conviction in a criminal case without a disciplinary inquiry. In such cases, Fundamental Rule 17(1), which deals with ‘no work, no pay', would apply.

HC also cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore, where it was held that an employee dismissed due to conviction but later acquitted is not entitled to back wages, as the employee's conduct of involving himself in the crime led to his absence from service.

In the present case, Chhattisgarh HC noted that the petitioner was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, leading to his termination, and although he was later acquitted, he had already retired.