Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court was hearing a petition filed by the State of Maharashtra, wherein the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal directed the state to pay the remaining salary and allowances to a police constable who was convicted in a case of cruelty against his wife. 

The court ruled that it was a case of cruelty where the conviction was overturned due to a settlement between husband and wife rather than on the merits, therefore, the defendant was not entitled to full payment for the time he was discharged from duty.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V Marne set aside a petition passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by order dated 24th March 2017 which allowed the respondent to pay off full salary and allowances during which he was dismissed owing to his conviction in the cruelty case but was acquitted after compromise with her wife.

Surendra G. Ghodake (respondent ) a constable was found guilty and sentenced to six months imprisonment under sections 498A (cruelty to wife) and 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing harm) of the IPC. On 30th June 1997, he was discharged from his job.

The man filed an appeal before the trial court in Nasik against his conviction, but the court dismissed it. He again filed a criminal revision application before the high court. After he filed consent agreements with his wife, the high court permitted the compounding of the offence and acquitted him.

On 26th March 2013, he was reinstated. The state government decided to pay only half the salary and allowances to the respondent from 30th June 1999 – 26th March 2013. Respondent challenged this before the tribunal. By order dated 24th March 2017, the tribunal directed to pay the remaining 50% of the salary. Thus, the State government filed the present writ petition.

The AGP appearing for the State submitted that the respondent's dismissal was due to conviction deriving from his private affairs unrelated to duty, so the state government could not be burdened with the cost of paying his full salary and allowances.

It was also contended that reliance of the tribunal on Rule 70 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Joining Time, Foreign Services, and Payment During Suspension, Dismissal, and Removal of Workers) Rules, 1981 (Rules of 1981) was also incorrect since it does not provide for payment of full salary and allowances upon restoration of a convicted employee.

Advocate Kulkarni, appearing for the respondent stated that there was no departmental investigation conducted against the respondent, who was terminated solely on the basis of his criminal record.

It was also stated that Rule 70 of the 1981 Regulations provided for the reimbursement of full salary and allowances upon the setting aside of the order of dismissal.

The court after hearing both sides observed that the respondent was not acquitted on merits, his acquittal was due to a settlement with his wife. As a result, the state cannot be held liable for paying the respondent's salary and allowances during the time he was suspended, the court said.

Further, the court noted that Rule 70 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Joining Time, Foreign Services, and Payment During Suspension, Dismissal, and Removal of Workers) Regulations, 1981 does not provide for automatic payment of salary following the reversal of any conviction.

“The man has already been sanctioned half wages even though he was not performing his duties for 15 years which is more than sufficient”, the court said.

Accordingly, the bench set aside the order dated 20th March 2017 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.

Case Title: State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Surendra G.Ghodake

Statute: Maharashtra Civil Services (Joining Time, Foreign Services, and Payment During Suspension, Dismissal, and Removal of Workers) Rules, 1981 (Rules of 1981)