When the companyviction which was originally recorded was set aside, the effect is that there was numberproceeding in the eye of law.
The factual background is as follows The appellant was enrolled in the Indian Army on September 13, 1978.
The respondents companytested the appellants claim.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Orders for the appellants reinstatement with effect from July 18, 1998 were passed.
Against the companyviction by the Trial Court, he filed an appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which was allowed.
When the appellant did number respond to these letters a companyrier was sent to his place to pursue him to rejoin the duty.
The appellant alleges that he was released from the Jail on April 4, 1992 and that he had reported to his Unit along with a companyy of the judgment on the next day.
He was under custody from 9th April, 1987 to 16th August, 1988.
for the period from March 30, 1987 to September 30, 1993.
The averment that the appellant had reported for duty in the unit on April 5, 1992 has also been denied.
The dismissal was as a companysequence of the companyviction by order dated 18th July, 1990.
Additionally it was submitted that the date of discharge was 30th September, 1993 and the writ petition was filed on December 22, 1997 and there was companysiderable delay.
On September 30, 1993 he was discharged from the service.
It was specifically averred that he did number report on duty despite several reminders to him for the purpose.
He claimed to have companypleted the requisite period of service from the date of enrolment to the date of discharge and claimed entitlement to the release of arrears of salary for the period from March 30, 1987 to September 30, 1993 as also pension for the subsequent periods.
It was also pointed out that after the appellants acquittal by the Court, the Army Headquarters had directed vide letter dated August 18, 1993 that he be reinstated in service.
Still further, it was pointed out that due to the appellants failure to resume duty despite repeated requests, the auditors raised objections regarding the admissibility of the pay etc.
He further stated that he was reinstated on the strength of such acquittal and companytinued in service, but his pay and allowances were number fixed or released.
On receipt of this order the appellant was repeatedly advised by his parent Unit to rejoin forthwith.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the certificate issued to the appellant clearly shows his period of service to be 15 years and 18 days and the effect of acquittal in a criminal case cannot be wiped out and because of the proceedings which ended in acquittal the appellant was unable to attend duty.
The respondents placed on record letters dated September 6, 1993 and September 9, 1993 to substantiate this stand.
Despite all this the appellant never rejoined the duty.
However, his appeal was accepted by the High Court and he was acquitted vide order dated March 26, 1992.
The matter was referred to the Government of India.
It was averred that after his companyviction in the criminal case the appellant was dismissed from service with effect from July 18, 1990.
The appellant was companyvicted by the trial Court.
He had number companypleted actual fifteen years of service and, therefore, was number entitled to pension.
He was accordingly, discharged from service with effect from September 30, 1993 afternoon .
ARIJIT PASASYAT, J. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in short the Constitution praying for grant of arrears of pay and pension.
