Jharkhand High Court
Birendra Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 February, 2024
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S.N. Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3981 of 2013
Birendra Kumar Singh .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Director, Primary Education, Ranchi.
3. District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer,
Jharkhand Education Project, Palamau.
.... ... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate
For the Resp-State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, AC to GA-III
-----
12/ 01.02.2024 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for
quashing of the office order dated 20.4.2013 issued by the respondent no. 3,
by which the petitioner has been terminated from service as Para Teacher of
Government Upgraded Middle School, Purnadih, Lesliganj, Palamau on the
ground that a criminal case has been lodged against him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
terminated from service only on the ground that a criminal case, being
Lesliganj P.S. Case No. 21 of 2013 was lodged against him. He draws the
attention of this Court towards the very termination order dated 20.4.2013
wherein it has been clearly mentioned that if in the criminal case, the
petitioner is found not guilty, his joining as Para-Teacher may be accepted.
Learned counsel further submits that now the petitioner has been acquitted in
the criminal case, as is apparent from the judgment dated 14.3.2023 passed in
G.R. No. 613 of 2013 arising out of Lesliganj P.S. Case No. 21 of 2013.
Learned counsel also places reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of
Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175 to
contend that in a similar situation, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that where
charges in departmental enquiry and criminal court are identical, evidence,
witnesses and circumstances are also same, the employee may be reinstated
in service with all consequential benefits. Learned counsel submits that in the
present case, the petitioner was terminated only on the ground of criminal
case and no departmental proceeding was ever initiated. He further points out
that the impugned termination order has already been stayed by this Court on
18.11.2013. Therefore, learned counsel submits that since the petitioner has
been acquitted in the criminal case and there is stay of the impugned
termination order, a direction be given to the respondents to consider his case
for reinstatement.
4. Opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, learned counsel representing the respondent-State
submits that though the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, but
the same is not an honourable acquittal. The petitioner has been given the
benefit of doubt and thereafter acquitted. As such, the petitioner cannot be
considered for reinstatement in service and he is not entitled for full back
wages, as he has not worked for the said period. However, he fairly submits
that there is no document on record to show that the petitioner has ever
represented before the authority to consider his case after acquittal in the
criminal case.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and without
entering into the merit of the case as to whether the petitioner is entitled for
reinstatement or not in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I
hereby direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the
respondents enclosing the copy of the judgment of acquittal and other
documents on which he is relying upon along with the copy of this order. On
receipt of the same, the respondents are directed to dispose of the
representation and pass a reasoned order thereon within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of such representation. Needless to say that if the
respondents come to a finding that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement
in service and he is entitled for back wages, the petitioner shall be reinstated
in service with full backs within a further period of two weeks. If any adverse
order is passed, the same may also be communicated to the petitioner within
the said period.
6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition
stands disposed of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
R.Kr.
