- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Of India And Others v. Jaipal Singh .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent, an employee of the appellant-department, was prosecuted along with his brother for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari on 5 March 1997. On appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana acquitted him. Despite the acquittal, the department did not reinstate him. Consequently, the respondent filed CWP No. 12929 of 1999 in the High Court, which directed his reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits by order dated 30 October 2001. The department appealed to the Supreme Court against that part of the High Court’s order which awarded full back wages.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an employee who was prosecuted and later acquitted in a criminal case is entitled to full back wages for the period between conviction and acquittal when the prosecution was not initiated by the employer-department.
- What is the precedential value of a Supreme Court order that summarily dismisses a special leave petition without reasons?
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- Relied on Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Supdt. Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board (1996) 11 SCC 603, where the Supreme Court ordered reinstatement but denied back wages in similar circumstances.
- Contended that because the department had no role in initiating the criminal case, it should not bear the financial burden of wages for the period during which the respondent was legally barred from service due to conviction.
Respondent's Arguments
- Invoked an order of the Supreme Court summarily dismissing an SLP against a High Court judgment (CWP No. 10201 of 2000, decided 19 July 2001) where reinstatement with back wages had been upheld.
- Argued that the facts of that case were similar, and therefore full back wages should also be granted to him.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Supdt. Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, (1996) 11 SCC 603 | Reinstatement may be granted, but back wages can be denied when the employer was not responsible for the criminal proceedings against the employee. | The Court accepted this as binding precedent and followed it to allow reinstatement but deny back wages for the period prior to acquittal. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court first clarified that a summary dismissal of a special leave petition, without a reasoned order, does not amount to a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution and therefore lacks precedential force. In contrast, the reasoned decision in Ranchhodji is a binding precedent.
Applying Ranchhodji, the Court distinguished between cases where the employer initiates the prosecution and those where the employee, as a private citizen, becomes involved in criminal proceedings. Here, the department played no role in the criminal case. The legal obligation to keep a convicted person out of service justified the employee’s removal during the period of conviction. Consequently, while the respondent’s right to reinstatement after acquittal was affirmed, fairness and reasonableness dictated that the department should not be made to pay wages for a period when it could not legally avail itself of the respondent’s services.
The Court found the High Court’s blanket award of full back wages “a grave error” for failing to consider these factors. It therefore modified the relief: reinstatement was upheld, but back wages were limited to the period commencing from the date of acquittal.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed. The respondent is to be reinstated within thirty days if not already reinstated. He will receive back wages only from the date of his acquittal, and the intervening period will count for continuity of service but without monetary benefits.
Implications: The judgment reinforces that summary dismissal of an SLP has no precedential value and clarifies that reinstatement after acquittal does not automatically carry an entitlement to back wages where the employer had no role in the prosecution. It thus limits employers’ financial liability while safeguarding an employee’s right to resume service after acquittal.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The above appeal has been filed against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 30-10-2001 in CWP No. 12929 of 1999 whereunder the Division Bench has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents and granted relief, as prayed for, directing reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages and consequential benefits. The respondent was involved in a criminal case and he was charge-sheeted for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC along with his brother and though he was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari for the same by a judgment dated 5-3-1997, on further appeal, before the High Court, the Division Bench of the High Court returned the verdict of acquittal. As a consequence thereof, since he was not reinstated in spite of the order of acquittal, he moved the High Court and obtained orders, as noticed supra. Aggrieved, the appellants have come before this Court.
3. Heard Mr Raju Ramachandran, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants, who placed strong reliance upon the decision of this Court in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Supdt. Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board (1996) 11 SCC 603 wherein this Court, in a case identical to the facts of the present case, has chosen to order only reinstatement but denied back wages on the ground that the Department was in no way concerned with the criminal case and, therefore, cannot be saddled with the liability also for back wages for the period when he was out of service during/after conviction suffered by the respondent in the criminal case. Per contra, Mr Ranbir Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent sought to place reliance upon an order of this Court dismissing the special leave petition filed summarily against the judgment of the very same High Court dated 19-7-2001 in CWP No. 10201 of 2000. The learned counsel for the respondent, by inviting our attention to the judgment of the High Court in that case contended that on the facts the case on hand was also similar to the case considered therein but this Court dismissed the special leave petition when the relief granted for reinstatement and back wages was contested by the authorities before this Court.
4. On a careful consideration of the matter and the materials on record, including the judgment and orders brought to our notice, we are of the view that it is well accepted that an order rejecting a special leave petition at the threshold without detailed reasons therefor does not constitute any declaration of law by this Court or constitute a binding precedent. Per contra, the decision relied upon by the appellant is one on merits and for reasons specifically recorded therefor it operates as a binding precedent as well. On going through the same, we are in respectful agreement with the view taken in Ranchhodji (1996) 11 SCC 603. If prosecution, which ultimately resulted in acquittal of the person concerned was at the behest of or by the department itself, perhaps different considerations may arise. On the other hand, if as a citizen the employee or a public servant got involved in a criminal case and 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. Though exception taken to that part of the order directing reinstatement cannot be sustained and the respondent has to be reinstated in service, for the reason that the earlier discharge was on account of those criminal proceedings and conviction only, the appellants are well within their rights to deny back wages to the respondent for the period he was not in service. The appellants cannot be made liable to pay for the period for which they could not avail of the services of the respondent. The High Court, in our view, committed a grave error, in allowing back wages also, without adverting to all such relevant aspects and considerations. Consequently, the order of the High Court insofar as it directed payment of back wages is liable to be and is hereby set aside.
5. The respondent will be entitled to back wages from the date of acquittal and except for the purpose of denying the respondent actual payment of back wages, that period also will be counted as period of service, without any break. The reinstatement, if not already done, in terms of the order of the High Court will be done within thirty days from today.
6. The appeal is allowed and disposed of on the above terms.
Alert