Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagannath Sondhiya vs Home Department on 30 June, 2023
Author: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
WRIT PETITION No. 4719 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
JAGANNATH SONDHIYA S/O SHRI RAMLAL
SONDHIYA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: NILL VILLAGE- BATAVDA,
TEHSIL JEERAPUR, DIST.
RAJGARH(BIAORA) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AMIT RAJ - ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF M.P., THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT
1.
(HOME GUARD), VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
POLICE HEADQUARTERS (HOME
2.
GUARD) JAHANGIRABAD BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
DISTRICT COMMANDANT, HOME
GUARD. RAJGARH (BIAORA), DIST.
3.
RAJGARH (BIAORA) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( BY SHRI VALMIK SAKARGAYEN - GOVT. ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 30-06-2023
17:07:12
2
.................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 02.02.2023
Pronounced on : 30.06.2023
................................................................................................................
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 11.10.2019
passed by the Director General of Police, Bhopal, respondent No.2 by
which he has denied reinstatement in service.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a
Home Guard on 11.10.1989. By order dated 10.10.2013 he was
promoted from the post of Lance Nayak to the post of Nayak. In the
meanwhile a First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner
for offences punishable under Sections 504, 189 of the IPC. By
judgment dated 10.04.2017 the trial Court convicted the petitioner for
the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to imprisonment for a period
of one year. Upon conviction of the petitioner as aforesaid, by order
dated 12.05.2017 the services of the petitioner were discontinued in
exercise of powers under Rule 27 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Home
Guard Rules, 2015 for the sole reason of his conviction in the criminal
case.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 30-06-2023
17:07:12
3. In appeal having been preferred by the petitioner, by judgment
dated 09.02.2019 the appellate Court set aside the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 10.04.2017 passed by the trial Court and
acquitted the petitioner of the offences alleged against him. Thereafter
the petitioner preferred a representation before the respondents for his
reinstatement in service which has rejected by the respondents by the
impugned order dated 11-10-2019.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole basis of
termination of service of the petitioner was his conviction in criminal
case hence after being acquitted by the appellate Court he deserves to
be reinstated. His prayer in that regard has been illegally rejected by the
respondents by order dated 11.10.2019. Since his discontinuation from
service was only on the basis of his conviction in criminal case, upon
being acquitted he has a right to be reinstated. The order of acquittal of
petitioner is based upon full satisfaction of the appellate Court and not
upon any compromise or witnesses turning hostile. No departmental
enquiry has been conducted by the respondents against the petitioner
hence denial of his reinstatement in service is totally unjustified.
Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Panna Mehta
V/s. State of M.P., ILR 2002 MP 1047, Upendra Gurjar V/s. State of
M.P. and Others, W.P. No.4324/2017 decided on 20.07.2017,
Dwarka Prasad Kashyap V/s. State of M.P. and Others 2010 (3)
MPHT 180, Arun Kumar Shukla V/s. Union of India and Others
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 30-06-2023
17:07:12
W.P. No.7680/2012 decided on 06.03.2013 and of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Union of India V/s. Jaipal Singh, 2004 (1) SCC
121 and Rajnarayan V/s. Union of India and others (2019) 5 SCC
5. Reply has been filed by the respondents and learned counsel for
the respondents has submitted that as per condition No.2 of Circular
dated 06.02.2013 issued by the State Government, Home Department
the petitioner is not fit for reinstatement. As per Clause 2 (2) of the said
Circular the conduct of the petitioner amounts to involvement in an
offence which falls under the category of moral turpitude. The
petitioner has been acquitted by the appellate Court by giving him the
benefit of doubt and holding that the prosecution has not proved its case
against him beyond all reasonable doubts. It is not a clean acquittal. He
is hence not entitled for reinstatement in services.
6. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner submitting that the
Circular dated 06.02.2013 relied upon by the respondents is in respect
of fresh/new appointments and not in respect of reinstatement as is
being claimed by the petitioner. As per Fundamental Rule 54 there is
provision that the employee who has been acquitted by the appellate
Court is entitled for reinstatement with consequential benefits. It is
immaterial as to whether the acquittal is by giving benefit of doubt.
Additional reply has been filed by the respondents in which it has been
submitted that the representation of the petitioner has already been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 30-06-2023
17:07:12
rejected by order dated 04.07.2022 and that he is not entitled for
reinstatement.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the record.
8. In Mannilal V/s. Permailal AIR 1971 SC 330 and Dilip Kumar
Sharma and Others V/s. State of M.P. AIR 1976 SC 133 the Supreme
Court has held that the order of acquittal means that the person
concerned has not committed the offence for which he was charged and
tried. Criminal Courts record acquittal when the prosecution fails to
prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt is given
to the accused which does not mean that he was involved in the case but
the same could not be proved by the prosecution. In Criminal Law,
words "beyond reasonable doubt" cannot be termed as stigma or proof
of any criminal charge against acquitted accused. In Panna Mehta
(supra) it has been held that in criminal jurisprudence there is no
difference between "clean acquittal", "Hon'ble acquittal" or "acquittal
based on giving benefit of doubt". When the accused is acquitted by
giving benefit of doubt, it means that the prosecution was not able to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In Upendra Gurjar (supra) it
has been held that the authorities cannot distinguish between acquittals
inter-se because Cr.P.C. does not contemplate any differentiation in
acquittal. In Dwarka Prasad Kashyap (supra) also it was held that on
being acquitted the terminated employee is entitled to be reinstated in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 30-06-2023
17:07:12
service.
9. Thus, it has been the consistent view that where the termination
of services of an employee is on the basis of his conviction in a criminal
case and his conviction is subsequently set aside and he is acquitted, he
is entitled to be reinstated in service regardless of whether his acquittal
is a clean acquittal or based upon benefit of doubt or for the reason of
the prosecution not proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts.
10. The services of the petitioner had been terminated on account of
his conviction in a criminal case. The same has however been set aside
in appeal by the Appellate Court in view of which the petitioner is
legally entitled to be reinstated in service. In not doing so the
respondents have acted illegally which cannot be sustained. The circular
relied upon by the respondents is in respect of new/fresh appointments
whereas the case of the petitioner is one of reinstatement. The said
circular is thus not applicable to the case of the petitioner. Rule 27(2) of
the M.P. Home Guard Rules, 2016 is only in relation to termination of
services on account of initiation of criminal proceedings but does not
deal with reinstatement upon acquittal therein. The said rule also does
not help the respondents in any manner.
11. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated
11.10.2019 passed by respondent No.2 cannot be sustained and is
hereby set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in services
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 30-06-2023
17:07:12
forthwith. As laid down by the Supreme Court in Jaipal Singh (supra)
and by this Court in Arun Kumar Shukla (supra), he would be
entitled to back wages from the date of his acquittal though he would
not be entitled to any back wages from the date of his termination till
the date of his acquittal. The petitioner shall also be granted continuity
of service for the entire period he remained out of employment i.e. from
the date of his termination till his reinstatement and the entire period
shall be treated as continued in service for the purpose of all other
service benefits. The necessary exercise be completed within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
12. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 30-06-2023
17:07:12
