Mangal Lal Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 8830 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mangal Lal Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 9 April, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51770
 
Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8980 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Mangal Lal Sharma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Khare (Sr. Advocate),Siddharth Khare
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was working on class-IV post with the respondent no.4-Institution when he was subjected to conviction on 10.07.1987 in a criminal case and on the same date services of the petitioner were dispensed with. Thereafter acquittal order was passed in favour of the petitioner by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1829 of 1987 vide order dated 30.01.2004. Thereafter the petitioner had filed writ petition being Writ-A No. 45744 of 2004 (Mangal Lal Sharma and another vs. State of U.P. and others) which was finally disposed of by order dated 16.11.2018, which is quoted herein below:

"1. Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned counsel for petitioners and perused the record.

2. Admittedly, after conviction in a criminal case, petitioners were terminated in 1987. It is said that against order of termination, petitioners filed an appeal which was allowed by Court. Thereafter, petitioners moved an application dated 26.04.2004 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) before District Inspector of School, Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as "DIOS") requesting for reinstatement but no decision has been taken thereof.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners has emphasized on prayer-2 of the writ petition that DIOS be directed to take a decision on petitioners' application dated 26.04.2004.

4. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, I dispose of this writ petition directing DIOS to consider and decide the aforesaid application by passing a speaking and reasoned order within two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him, and, in case, any amount is found due, the same shall be paid to petitioners within a further period of two months."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter the matter was remitted back to the District Inspector of Schools, who has passed the present impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for salary from the date of termination till the retirement of the petitioner i.e. 30.06.2014.

4. The ground for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is that another person was appointed in place of the petitioner as such the petitioner has no right.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed the aforesaid ground and stated that once the order of termination was passed on the fact that petitioner has been convicted and the conviction order itself has been set aside by this Court in criminal appeal, then the foundation itself stands removed. In this respect petitioner has relied upon judgment and order of this Court passed in Writ-A No. 53294 of 2010 (Dr. Brahma Swaroop Gupta (Varshney) vs. State of U.P. Thru' Principal Secy. and others) decided on 07.12.2017. Paras-9 & 10 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein below:

"9. Precisely, the issue now deserves consideration is that whether the conviction recorded by the trial court can be a foundation for sustaining the order passed by the disciplinary authority invoking the power under Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution of India even after setting aside the conviction to invoke the power in the provision aforesaid for which the existence of conviction is sine qua non. Once the appellate court has set aside the conviction recorded by the trial court, the criminal charge does not remain in existence and therefore, there cannot be any conduct of the petitioner that led to his conviction pursuant to a criminal charges.

10. As a matter of fact, after setting aside the judgment of the conviction, there is no conduct that led to conviction of the petitioner and as such any order invoking the power under Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution of India loss its foundation and such order cannot be allowed to remain in currency. The position would have been different if the respondent would have proceeded against the petitioner in accordance with Disciplinary and Appeal Rules to hold a departmental inquiry even after acquittal. In the case in hand, no such inquiry at all conducted and the petitioner was dismissed from service only on count of conduct that led to his conviction, which is no more in existence. The order as such is bad."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the foundation with regard to termination has already been removed by the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal appeal then the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement.

7. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition and submits that another person was appointed after termination of the petitioner on the post, in question, and the post was not vacant, however, learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the fact that petitioner has been acquitted on 30.01.2004. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the fact that from the date of acquittal till the date of retirement of the petitioner the salary would be payable as the foundation has been removed.

8. It is to be seen that in the present case the controversy involved around the fact that when the termination order has been passed against the petitioner without holding any disciplinary proceedings on the ground that petitioner has been convicted then what would be the effect of order of acquittal passed in criminal appeal in favour of the petitioner. It is to be seen that once the disciplinary proceedings are not held then the sole reliance is the termination of the petitioner, which is based on the conviction order dated 10.07.1987. The aforesaid conviction has been set aside by this Court in Criminal Appeal on 30.01.2004 which has not been disputed by learned Standing Counsel.

9. It is to be seen that once the foundation itself has been removed then the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated. It is also to be noted that once the foundation is removed the earlier termination order itself would loose its efficacy and would not hold the field. Once the termination order itself has lost its efficacy then the petitioner would be entitled for salary from the date of termination till the date of retirement i.e. 30.06.2014 along with all consequential benefits. It is further to be noted that there was no reason that disciplinary proceedings against petitioner could not have been initiated.

10. Once the employer has not initiated disciplinary proceedings, in view of the judgment of this Court in Writ-A No. 53294 of 2010, the petitioner is entitled to the similar relief. Accordingly, the termination order dated 10.07.1987 is hereby declared invalid, consequently, the impugned order dated 16.04.2019 passed by district Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr is hereby set aside. The petitioner will be treated as reinstated on the post, in question, and would be entitled to salary and other retiral benefits from the date of termination i.e. 10.07.1987 till the date of retirement i.e. 30.06.2014. The aforesaid benefits shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

11. With the aforesaid observations/direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 9.4.2025

S.Prakash