Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 673 (RAJ)

HARNEK SINGH CHAHAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2018-03-05

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs : "a. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 27.01.1998 (Annex.5) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service from 12.06.1986 with all the due consequential benefits such as salary, allowances, promotion, GPF and gratuity. b. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. c. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner." 2. The petitioner joined the services on the post of Assistant Seed Inspector with the Rajasthan State Seed Corporation Limited in pursuance of the appointment order dated 12.11.1981. 3. On 02.05.1986, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498A and 302 IPC at Police Station, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar. 4. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was suspended by the respondents on 12.06.1986 while invoking Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules of 1958'), as adopted by the Corporation. 5. The petitioner was convicted by the competent criminal court vide order dated 27.01.1990 for the offences under Sections 306 and 498A IPC. Consequent upon such conviction, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 27.01.1998 passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation, while invoking the power conferred by Rule 19(1) of the Rules of 1958. 6. The petitioner preferred S.B. Criminal Appeal No.50/1990 before this Hon'ble Court, wherein vide order dated 07.11.2013, the conviction of the petitioner, as aforementioned, was set aside; however, prior thereto, the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on 09.08.2013. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has come out with a case that the petitioner stood dismissed from service, while invoking the power conferred by Rule 19(1) of the Rules of 1958 by the respondents, only on the ground of his conviction vide aforementioned order dated 27.01.1990. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that once this Hon'ble Court had acquitted the petitioner from the charge so levelled, then the baseline of the dismissal order goes away, and hence, the petitioner ought to have been granted all the consequential benefits. 9. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that once this Hon'ble Court had acquitted the petitioner from the charge so levelled, then the baseline of the dismissal order goes away, and hence, the petitioner ought to have been granted all the consequential benefits. 9. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the precedent law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in Ganesh Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2013 1 Diwani Nirnay Journal 3, relevant portion of which reads as under :- "6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an obligatory duty of the respondents that after acquittal from the charges against an employee to grant all retiral benefits including service benefits. But in this case, petitioner was placed under suspension in the year 1987 and he remained suspended till his retirement w.e.f. 31.12.1996 and thereafter, repeatedly, petitioner made request to the respondents to release his retiral benefits as well as service benefits but those benefits are not paid to the petitioner till today. 7. In this writ petition while filing reply by the State, it is pointed out that although petitioner was acquitted from the charges levelled against him for the offence under Section 5(1) (d) (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 but against the said judgment dated 07.03.98 passed in Case No. 03/97, an appeal was preferred by the State which is pending in this Court, therefore, as per Rule 7(4) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, petitioner is not entitled for service benefits so also retiral benefits when the case is pending against the petitioner. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that once an employee is acquitted from the criminal charges levelled against him after due trial then, obviously he is required to be treated acquitted from the charges until and unless he is again convicted by the appellate court. 9. Only on the basis of pendency of criminal appeal against the judgment of acquittal the respondents cannot deny the service benefits as well as retiral benefits. As per rules, as and when trial concludes, the respondents are under an obligation to grant retiral benefits and they cannot retain the retiral benefits and service benefits absolutely on the ground that appeal is against the judgment and appeal is pending. 10. As per rules, as and when trial concludes, the respondents are under an obligation to grant retiral benefits and they cannot retain the retiral benefits and service benefits absolutely on the ground that appeal is against the judgment and appeal is pending. 10. In view of above, the respondents are directed to release all the retiral benefits and services benefits because he was placed under suspension in the year 1997 and remained under suspension till his retirement and in between that period, petitioner was getting only subsistence allowance whereas, after acquittal, he became entitled to get all other services benefits. 11. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to complete the process for fixation and grant of all service benefits and retiral benefits within a period of six months. It is also made it clear that petitioner's case for interest after his acquittal may also be considered in accordance with Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996." 10. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the facts as submitted on behalf of the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents however, submitted that the acquittal of the petitioner was not honourable, and therefore, the invocation of the power conferred by Rule 19(1) of the Rules of 1958 by the respondents was justified. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the respondents were justified in invoking the power under Rule 19(1) of the Rules of 1958, as the petitioner stood convicted vide order dated 27.01.1990 by the competent court, and thus, there is no question of granting him any benefit. 13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the precedent law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that the petitioner was appointed on 12.11.1981. He thereafter, in the year 1986, faced the FIR under Sections 498A and 302 IPC. The petitioner was suspended on 12.06.1986. The conviction of the petitioner on 27.01.1990, led to his termination from the services on 27.01.1998 by the respondents while invoking Rule 19(1) of the Rules of 1958. The said conviction however, could not be sustained in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.50/1990, and this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 07.11.2013, acquitted the petitioner from the criminal charges. 14. The conviction of the petitioner on 27.01.1990, led to his termination from the services on 27.01.1998 by the respondents while invoking Rule 19(1) of the Rules of 1958. The said conviction however, could not be sustained in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.50/1990, and this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 07.11.2013, acquitted the petitioner from the criminal charges. 14. This Court also finds that the precedent law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is also governing the field, and once such procedure under Rule 19(1) of the Rules of 1958 has been invoked and penalty was imposed upon the petitioner only on the ground of his conduct, which led to his conviction on a criminal charge, then, in the circumstances, when the charge itself has been done away with by this Hon'ble Court in the aforementioned criminal appeal, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 15. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.01.1998 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to all benefits notionally till the date of his superannuation. Thus, the respondents shall compute all the retiral benefits of the petitioner, treating him to be in actual service till the date of his actual superannuation. However, the benefits from termination till the date of superannuation shall be notional in nature. The petitioner shall be required to cooperate with such computation, and if any amount is required to be paid by the petitioner to seek the ultimate retiral benefits, then the same shall be immediately paid by the petitioner. Such computation and necessary benefits shall be rendered to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. The respondents shall treat the petitioner as all other similarly situated employees for grant of retiral benefits.