Setting aside a constable’s conviction for cruelty to his wife following a compromise and not on merit would not entitle him to 100% back wages for the time he was dismissed from duty, observed the Bombay High Court.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne recently set aside an order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) which had directed the Maharashtra government to pay full back wages to a constable who was convicted and later acquitted after a compromise with his wife.
'Respondent (constable) is not acquitted on merits'
“.. respondent (constable) is not acquitted on merits. His acquittal is attributable to compromise with his wife,” the bench observed. It further added that to saddle the state with 100% black wages would be undesirable. It said: “Petitioner-State therefore cannot be saddled with the liability to pay salary and allowances during the period when respondent remained under dismissal…. However, to expect payment of 100% salary and allowances during that period would be highly undesirable.”
In 1996, when the constable was posted at Nashik road, his wife filed a complaint for cruelty. A magistrate convicted him on June 3, 1999 , following which he was placed under suspension. He was sentenced to six months in prison. The sessions court dismissed his appeal against conviction. He then approached the high court. Pending hearing in his appeal, he and his wife reached a settlement and the consent terms were submitted before the HC. Considering the settlement, the HC acquitted him.
Government reinstated him with 50% salary for period during dismissal
The government reinstated him on March 26, 2013. However, it decided to pay only 50% salary and allowances for the period of his dismissal. He challenged this before the MAT which allowed his application.
Hence the state approached the HC against the MAT order contending that he was honourably acquitted but was acquitted due to compromise with his wife.
The constable argued that no departmental enquiry was conducted against him and he was dismissed only on account of conviction in the criminal case. Hence, he claimed following his reinstatement he is entitled to full back wages.
The court remarked that in such circumstances “it is highly debatable whether any back wages were payable” to the constable. “Nonetheless the State Government decided to pay 50% salary and allowances to him during the intervening period,” it added.
Further, the constable had involved himself in a criminal case arising out of his private affairs unconnected with performance of his duties. He kept himself away from his duties on account of his conviction, averred the court.
