Corp. Mithilesh Kumar @Mithilesh Singh vs Union Of India & Ors

CORP. MITHILESH KUMAR @MITHILESH SINGH Appellant(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

Additional Solicitor General for the respondent- Union of India.

Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of these

appeals are recapitulated as under :

The appellant was enrolled as Combatant Member of the

Indian Air Force on 12.09.1986.

The appellant was convicted in a criminal case under

Sections 302/324/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code and was awarded

life imprisonment by the trial Court and consequently the appellant

was removed from service by the Chief of Air Staff on 22.03.1994.

The appellant filed a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the Order of

Removal dated 28.03.1998 and that the same be declared as illegal,

violative of rules and against the principles of natural justice.

The appellant also filed an appeal against his conviction and he was

acquitted by the High Court on 22.02.2007. On his representation,

the appellant was reinstated in service with effect from 09.04.1994 2

vide order dated 30.10.2007 without back-wages. It may be pertinent

to mention here that the appellant's initial term of engagement was

for 20 years with pensionary benefits. Admittedly, this period of

initial term of 20 years was also over.

The short grievance articulated by the appellant was that

alongwith reinstatement, he should have been given back-wages and

consequential relief. The appellant failed to place reliance on any

judgment of this Court to support his submission.

Ms.Indira Jaisingh, learned Additional Solicitor General

appearing for the Union of India has submitted that the impugned

judgment of the High Court requires no interference and the legal

position as focused by the appellant is no longer res integra. She

placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Ranchhodji Chaturji

Thakore Vs. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board,

Himmatnagar (Gujarat) & Anr., (1996) 11 SCC p.603. In this case

also the appellant was convicted under Section 302 read with Section

34 of the I.P.C. and on that basis he was dismissed from the

service. The appellant approached the High Court by filing an appeal

against the order of conviction and in that appeal he was acquitted

of the offence. The respondent had reinstated the appellant in

service but denied the back-wages. This Court examined this position

and observed that "....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 had taken action by way of 3

disciplinary proceedings and the action was found to be

unsustainable in law and he was unlawfully prevented from

discharging the duties....".

Learned Additional Solicitor General has also placed

reliance on a judgment of this Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs.

Jaipal Singh, (2004) 1 SCC p.121. In this case also the initial

conviction was converted into acquittal by the trial Court. This

Court observed that "....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...."

Reliance was also placed on the decision in Baldev Singh

Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 8 SCC p.747. This Court has

reiterated the same principle that merely because there has been an

acquittal does not automatically entitle the appellant to get the

consequential benefits.

In view of the consistent legal position, we cannot find

any fault with the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appeals, 4

being devoid of any merit are, accordingly, dismissed. The parties

are directed to bear their respective costs.

...................J. (DALVEER BHANDARI)

...................J. (DEEPAK VERMA)

NEW DELHI;

9TH NOVEMBER, 2010