Pahalwan Singh Koli vs State of M.P. and others

Hon. Shri Justice Sujoy Paul

The petitioner was convicted by order dated 31.1.2003 in Sessions Case No. 212/11. In view of this conviction, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice under Rule 19 (1) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. After receiving petitioner''s reply, he was dismissed from service on the basis of his conduct which had led to conviction. 2. The petitioner preferred an appeal u/s 374 Cr.P.C. against the order passed by the Sessions Court. This Court in Case No. 106/2003 allowed the appeal by judgment dated 2.7.2010 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a representation for setting aside the dismissal order and to reinstate him. The respondents have not taken any action till date. Shri Vivek Jain, submits that the only reason for petitioner''s dismissal was the conviction based on judgment dated 31.1.2003 and once this order has been set aside by the High Court, the very foundation on the strength of which petitioner was dismissed, does not survive and respondents ought to have reinstated the petitioner.

Per contra, Mrs. Nidhi Patankar, learned Govt. Advocate submits that in the return it is stated that respondents are challenging the order of acquittal passed by the High Court before the Apex Court. However, there is no material on record to show that any SLP has been actually filed by the respondents. I find force in the argument of petitioner that the very foundation/reason on the strength of which petitioner was dismissed from service does not survive and available to the respondents. This question has no more res-integra in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in M.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar Save, ILR (2008) M.P. 2213.

Considering the aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, the effect of setting aside the order of conviction by this Court is that there exists no conviction against the petitioner. Thus, the only reason assigned for petitioner''s dismissal is not available/survived and, therefore, the respondents ought to have reinstated the petitioner in service after his acquittal by this Court. Considering the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner within three weeks. The petitioner shall be entitled to get back wages from August, 2010, the date when he brought the factum of his acquittal to the notice of the respondents and respondents have not reinstate him. In other words, after bringing the judgment of acquittal to the notice of respondents, there was no reason to keep the petitioner out of employment. After all, the petitioner was willing to work and was deprived to perform his duties because of the reasons solely attributable to the respondents. Accordingly, from the date the petitioner brought the judgment of acquittal to the notice of the respondents, the respondents are bound to give him back wages. Accordingly, the petitioner shall get back wages from August, 2010 till his reinstatement. The arrears be calculated and paid to the petitioner within three months from the date of reinstatement. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.