Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1505 Chatt
Judgement Date : 23 March, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 1941 of 2022
Swayamwar Jha S/o Late Shri Umesh Jha, Aged About 57 Years, R/o
M-805, Aadarsh Nagar, Kusmunda Colliery, District Korba
Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through The Director (Personnel),
SECL Headquarters, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda
Area, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 23.03.2022
1. The grievance of petitioner in the present writ petition is the inaction
on the part of respondents in taking an appropriate decision on the
claim of petitioner for reinstatement in service pursuant to the
judgment of acquittal dated 01.10.2021.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was working under
the respondents as a Clerk Grade-II. The petitioner got implicated in
a criminal case for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. He was
subjected to a criminal trial where the trial resulted in his conviction
vide judgment dated 09.11.2001 and the petitioner was sentenced to
RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.500. The said judgment of conviction
was subjected to challenge in Criminal Appeal No.1118/2001. The
petitioner got the suspension of sentence and he was released on bail
vide order dated 17.04.2002. Since there was a judgment of
conviction against the petitioner, the respondent authorities invoking
the provisions of the certified standing order particularly Clause 26.8,
termianted the services of petitioner w.e.f. 05.11.2002 vide order
dated 01.11.2002.
3. It is relevant at this juncture to mention that the order of termination
was only on the basis of conviction of petitioner. Subsequently, the
criminal appeal preferred by the petitioner i.e. Criminal Appeal
No.1118/2001 stood finally allowed vide order dated 01.10.2021. The
judgment of conviction was set aside/quashed and it was held that the
prosecution has not been able to establish its case so far as the
offence of petitioner is concerned. Thereafter, the petitioner has been
approaching the respondents for taking his services back but the
respondents are not taking a decision on the said claim of petitioner
till date.
4. Undisputedly, the petitioner herein has not been removed or
terminated from service after conducting a departmental enquiry. The
sole ground for termination was the order of conviction. Subsequent
to the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.1118/2001 dated 01.10.2021,
the judgment of conviction is no longer in existence. Since the
judgment of conviction itself does not exist, the ground on which the
petitioner was terminated vide order dated 01.11.2002 also does not
exist any further. The order of termination from service therefore on
the basis of conviction needs to be reconsidered by the respondents
and an appropriate order has to be passed.
5. Given the facts, the writ petition as of now stands disposed of
directing the respondents to immediately consider and decide the
claim of petitioner for reinstatement in service in the light of the
judgment of acquittal in his favour. Let the respondents 1 & 2 take an
appropriate decision in this regard within an outer limit of 60 days
from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Needless to mention
that the authorities would consider and decide the claim in
accordance with the rules and regulations and the legal positions as it
stand today.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Khatai
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!