Ranchhodji Chaturji ... v. Superintendent Engin..., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Neutral Citations

996 INSC 1234

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

SLP (C) No. 22538 of 1996 (CC No. 5509 of 1996), decided on October 28, 1996

Disposition

dismissed

Advocates

H.A Raichura, Advocate, for the Petitioner.

Judges

Justice K. Ramaswamy

Acts

Article 226 of the Constitution

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, a Junior Clerk employed by the State Electricity Board, was convicted by the Sessions Judge on 1-10-1986 for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. Based on this conviction, the Electricity Board dismissed him from service. The dismissal order was challenged through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

During the pendency of that writ petition, a Division Bench of the High Court, by judgment dated 14-10-1992, acquitted the petitioner of the criminal charge. A learned Single Judge of the High Court therefore ordered the petitioner’s reinstatement with continuity of service but denied back wages. The petitioner’s intra-court appeal (Letters Patent Appeal No. 319 of 1993) was dismissed on 26-8-1993. He then approached the Supreme Court by way of the present special leave petition. Prior to considering the merits, the Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the petitioner, who was acquitted after initially being convicted and dismissed from service, is entitled to back wages for the period he was out of employment.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court noted that reinstatement had already been granted by the High Court because the dismissal was premised solely on the criminal conviction, which had been set aside. The sole remaining controversy concerned back wages.

The Court reasoned that entitlement to back wages generally arises where an employee is wrongfully prevented from working due to unsustainable disciplinary action. Here, however, the petitioner’s own conduct—his involvement in the criminal case, resulting conviction, and consequent incarceration—rendered him unable to discharge his duties. Although ultimately acquitted, the period of unemployment stemmed from circumstances attributable to him, not from any illegality on the employer’s part in initiating dismissal under the relevant service rules. Therefore, no equitable or legal basis existed to award back wages. The Court concluded that neither the Single Judge nor the Division Bench had erred in refusing that relief.

Holding and Implications

The special leave petition was dismissed. Reinstatement with continuity of service, as already ordered by the High Court, stands affirmed, but the petitioner will not receive any back wages for the period he was out of service. The decision is confined to the facts of the case and sets no new precedent beyond reaffirming the discretionary nature of back-wage relief when an employee’s own conduct leads to loss of service.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) And Another

Order

1. Delay condoned.

2. This case does not warrant interference for the reason that, admittedly, the petitioner was charged for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for his involvement in a crime committed on 1-10-1986. The Sessions Judge had convicted the petitioner under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. On that basis, the respondents had taken action to have him dismissed from service since he was working as a 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 14-10-1992 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 of 1993 which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 26-8-1993. Thus, this special leave petition.

3. 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 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 have taken action by way of disciplinary proceedings 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 its own backdrop. 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. 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.

4. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

Ranchhodji Chaturji ... v. Superintendent Engin...