Appeal Success: Denial of Back Wages During Suspension for Criminal Proceedings, Reinstatement Ordered from Acquittal Date.

The SC allowed the appeal, modifying the HC's decision by denying back wages to the respondent for the period he was out of service due to criminal proceedings. The respondent, acquitted by the HC, was entitled to re-instatement with back wages only from the acquittal date, counting that period as continuous service. Re-instatement was ordered within thirty days.

---

---

Issues involved:
The appeal against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh granting re-instatement with full back wages and consequential benefits to the respondent who was involved in a criminal case.

Details of the Judgment:
The respondent, along with his brother, was charge-sheeted for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. He was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge but acquitted by the Division Bench of the High Court. The appellants challenged the re-instatement with back wages granted by the High Court.

The appellants argued that the department was not concerned with the criminal case and should not be liable for back wages. The respondent cited a similar case where back wages were granted. The Supreme Court clarified that dismissing a special leave petition does not constitute a binding precedent, unlike a decision on merits. The Court agreed with a previous decision that if an employee is acquitted after being convicted, the department cannot be faulted for keeping them out of service.

The Court held that the respondent should be re-instated but denied back wages for the period he was not in service due to the criminal proceedings. The High Court's decision to grant back wages was deemed erroneous, and it was set aside. The respondent would be entitled to back wages from the date of acquittal, counting that period as service without a break. Re-instatement was to be done within thirty days.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the respondent was to be re-instated without back wages for the period he was out of service due to the criminal case.

---