Shankar Ram …. … v. The General Manager
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4 of 2023 Shankar Ram …. …. Petitioner Versus The General Manager (B&K Area), Central Coal Fields Limited, Bokaro. … … Respondent ------ CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK ------ : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate ------ For the Petitioner For the Respondent 6/ 20.07.2023
Legal Reasoning
Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 24.08.2013, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service, with further direction for forfeiture of gratuity amount of the petitioner, as the petitioner was convicted in a criminal case. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 28.6.2022, whereby, representation of the petitioner for reinstatement in service was rejected despite his acquittal in criminal case. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Labour Category-I under the respondent. After rendering service for twenty long years, he was deployed as Mechanical Helper Category-II. It is further case of petitioner that he was taken into custody on 06.01.2012 in connection with Bermo P.S. Case No. 116 of 1997 for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After trial, the petitioner was sentenced for life imprisonment. Thereafter, on 24.8.2013, the impugned dismissal order was issued only on the ground that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced in S.T. No. 269 of 2004. Thereafter, on appeal preferred before this Court, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 988 of 2012 vide judgment dated 2.11.2021. The petitioner thereafter approached the respondent with the order of acquittal in criminal case, but by order dated 28.6.2022, his representation was rejected out-rightly. Under these facts, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Arwind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that though the petitioner was convicted in criminal case and his service was terminated on the sole ground of conviction, but in appeal before this 2 Court, he has been acquitted. Learned counsel placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Basanti Prasad Vs. Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board & Ors., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 791 submits that since the petitioner has been acquitted, the respondent ought to have considered the same and reinstated the petitioner in service. Learned counsel further submits that the order dated 28.6.2022, whereby the representation of the petitioner for reinstatement was rejected despite his acquittal by the Division Bench of this Court, is cryptic and not tenable in the eyes of law, as no consideration has been shown by the authority. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the order dated 28.6.2022 is fit to be quashed and set aside and a direction be given to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. 5. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that merely because the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case cannot be a ground for his reinstatement into service, as the acquittal of the petitioner is not an honorable acquittal. He further submits that acquittal of the petitioner is merely because the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence against the petitioner and the same cannot be construed to be an honorable acquittal. To buttress his argument, learned counsel places reliance on the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors., reported in 2023 OnLine SC 205. Learned counsel by drawing the attention of this Court towards para-11 of the said judgment, submits that the issue involved in this case has been dealt with in the said judgment and it has been held that acquittal in the criminal case is not conclusive of the suitability of the candidates in the post concerned. If a person is acquitted or discharged, it cannot always be inferred that he was falsely involved or he had no criminal antecedents. Learned counsel further submits that same view has been taken in the case of Inspector General of Police Vs. S. Samuthiram, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 598. Learned counsel further submits that no interference is warranted in the writ petition and the same is fit to be dismissed in limine. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the records, this Court is of the considered view that the 3 case of the petitioner needs consideration for the following facts and reasons:- (i) It is not in dispute that the petitioner was convicted in the criminal case. It is also not in dispute that thereafter, the petitioner was acquitted in criminal case by this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 988 of 2012. (ii) The dismissal from service of the petitioner is only on the basis of conviction and now the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case. Since the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, the respondent is duty bound to reinstate the petitioner. (iii) It is not a case that on the ground of moral turpitude, the petitioner was proceeded departmentally. Never any proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The charge of moral turpitude could not have been proved in any other proceeding. Now the sole ground of conviction has been set at rest by acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case by this Court. (iv) Reliance placed by learned counsel for the respondent in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla (supra) is of no help to them, as because in that case, several other charges were levelled against the delinquent and conviction in the criminal case was also one of the major ground and merely he has been acquitted in the criminal case that cannot be a ground of reinstatement of the delinquent. (v) In the present case, the sole ground for dismissal of the petitioner was the conviction in the criminal case and that conviction has been set aside by this Court, the petitioner is bound to be reinstated in service. Exactly, in the same facts and circumstances of this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Basanti Prasad (supra) has held in para-28 as under:- “28. Since the punishment imposed was based on an order of conviction and since the same is set aside by an order passed by a superior forum and that order having become final for various reasons, including the death of the appellant's husband, as natural corollary, the request of the appellant requires to be redressed by the employer and since that was (sic not) done, a writ court ought to have exercised jurisdiction by its extraordinary commanding the respondents to redress the grievance of the appellant without resorting to a hypertechnical approach. In view of the above, the order passed by the 4 respondents terminating the services of the appellant requires to be set aside and we do so.” (emphasis supplied) 7. As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, regulations, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, the impugned order dated 24.8.2013 whereby the petitioner was dismissed with direction for forfeiture of gratuity amount, as also the order dated 28.6.2022, are hereby quashed and set aside. As a result of quashment of the impugned orders, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. Let the entire exercise be undertaken by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. 8. With the above observations and direction, this writ petition stands allowed. R.Kr. (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)