Raju Thapa v. State of Uttarakhand and others

passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 907 of 2017 (S/S), Raju Thapa vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner (appellant herein) was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Upper Primary School, Gairad, Dug, District–Bageshwar, which is a grant-in-aid institution managed by the Committee of Management. The appellant was appointed on 02.11.2004. Subsequently, FIR No. 1533 of 2010 was lodged against the petitioner under Sections 67-A and 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioner was arrested on 2

16.12.2010, and after trial, he was convicted under Section 376 IPC and Section 67-A of the IT Act, and sentenced to undergo ten years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 376 IPC, and two years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 67-A IT Act, vide judgment and order dated 22.09.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2011. Consequent to the said conviction, the Committee of Management passed a resolution terminating his services, which was approved by the District Education Officer, Bageshwar, vide letter dated

01.02.2012. The petitioner was informed that his services stood terminated w.e.f. 16.12.2010, i.e., the date of his arrest.

3. The petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 286 of 2011 before this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court, vide judgment dated 25.07.2013, allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations before the Manager of the School seeking cancellation of the termination order and reinstatement, but no action was taken. Meanwhile, the State of Uttarakhand preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 2436 of 2014 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is still pending for disposal.

5. The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 907 of 2017 (S/S) before the learned Single Judge seeking quashing of the 3 termination order and reinstatement in service. After exchange of pleadings, the learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 28.06.2018, dismissed the writ petition, primarily on the ground that the SLP (Crl.) No. 2436 of 2014 against the acquittal was pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court again after its disposal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the appellant’s conviction had been set aside, the very basis of his termination ceased to exist. As the termination was solely based on conviction, and no disciplinary proceedings were initiated, the appellant was entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a series of judgments, including Deputy Director of Collegiate Education vs. S. Nagoor Meera, (1995) 3 SCC 377, and State of Tamil Nadu vs. R. Krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517, has categorically held that if an employee’s dismissal is based solely on conviction and such conviction is subsequently set aside, the employee must be reinstated, unless a separate departmental inquiry is conducted.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that the appellant’s acquittal was not honourable, as he was given the benefit of doubt, and since the charges related to moral turpitude, reinstatement was not justified. Reliance was placed 4 on State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Love Kush Meena, (2021) 8 SCC 774.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is admitted that no disciplinary inquiry was ever initiated against the appellant and that the termination was based solely on his conviction.

10. Once the conviction of the appellant was set aside by this Court, the foundation of termination order vanished, and the order could not have been sustained in law. The pendency of SLP (Crl.) No. 2436 of 2014 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not ipso facto revive the conviction or justify continued termination, unless the acquittal is reversed.

11. The reliance of the learned counsel for the State on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Love Kush Meena (supra) is misplaced. In that case, the respondent’s appointment was denied on account of non-honourable acquittal in the context of recruitment advertisement conditions. The present case stands on a different footing, the appellant was a regularly appointed employee, whose service conditions are governed by the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006, and Regulations, 2019 framed thereunder. Regulation 25 of Chapter III of the Regulations, 2019 specifies the major penalties, which include termination from service.

12. Under the said statutory framework, termination is a major penalty, which can be imposed only after due disciplinary 5 inquiry. Since no such inquiry was ever conducted, and termination rested only on conviction, the same cannot survive after acquittal. Therefore, once the appellant was acquitted, his reinstatement revived automatically, and non- consideration of his representations by the authorities was unsustainable in law.

13. It is not disputed that during the pendency of this appeal, the appellant has attained the age of superannuation. In such circumstances, actual reinstatement is not possible. However, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the termination order dated 01.02.2012 cannot be legally sustained and is accordingly set aside without back wages.

14. The appellant shall be deemed to have continued in service notionally from the date of termination till the date of superannuation. The said period shall be counted for the purpose of pensionary and other retiral benefits. The appellant shall not be entitled to back wages, as he has not rendered actual service during that period.

15. The impugned judgment dated 28.06.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. The Special Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

16. No order as to costs. (Alok Mahra, J.) 19.11.2025 (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 19.11.2025 BS BALWANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2eac bf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5185F 418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH