submitted that Hazari Lal's case (supra) was not applicable since in the said case, the conviction was only under Section 323 IPC and the services had been dispensed with by the employer on the ground of the said conviction. The Apex Court, in such circumstances, had held that he was not punished for any heinous offence and, therefore, upheld the order passed by the Tribunal which had allowed the application of the employee. It is thus submitted that in the present case, the conviction had been under Section 307 IPC and it was in such circumstances, the order of dismissal was passed. Even though the petitioner-workman had been acquitted under Section 307 IPC but it was submitted that the sting of conviction would continue and stigma was not obliterated. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Punjah Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Another vs. Ram Sajivan and another, 2007 (3) SCT 213 to submit that even if the offender was released on probation, the stigma of conviction would continue. On the issue of back wages, it was further submitted that the workman was not entitled for back wages and there was no fault of the department and the workman had been kept out on account of his conduct and since he had not worked, he was not entitled for the back wages. It was accordingly submitted that giving back wages from February, 2000 was not justified and reliance was placed upon judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Jaipal Singh, 2004 (1) SCT 108 and Division Bench judgment of this Court in LPA No. 930 of 2012, Sat Pal Dhawan vs. State Bank of Patiala and others decided on 01.04.2013.
