Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mithlesh Suthar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:51372) on 26 November, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:51372]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12454/2025
Mithlesh Suthar S/o Late Smt. Manju Lata Suthar, Aged About 30
Years, Resident Of 750, Gajner Road, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Joint Secretary, Department Of Personnel,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
5. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Somani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Mehta, DGC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
26/11/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the
action of the respondents in withholding the compassionate
appointment of the petitioner on the ground that an FIR was
registered against the petitioner under Section 498-A IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
criminal trial resulted in acquittal and atleast after the acquittal,
his case should be considered.
3. In similar circumstances, in the case of Rajendra Meena
Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.15957/2021), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 13.05.2024 has held as follows:
"20. The controversy in this respect has already been
put to rest by my earlier judgment in a case titled
Sukhjit Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (CWP
No. 9808 of 2003), decided on 13.08.2019, which I
(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 10:35:31 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51372] (2 of 4) [CW-12454/2025]
rendered while being puisne Judge of Punjab and
Haryana High Court, which in turn is based on Division
Bench judgments rendered by both Punjab and Haryana
as well as Madras High Court. For ready reference,
relevant thereof is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"12. Every acquittal is honourable acquittal. There is
nothing in the Criminal Procedure Code nor is there
any rule of criminal jurisprudence for treating the
effects and consequences of an honourable acquittal
from an acquittal on failure of the prosecution to
prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
13. A Division Bench of this Court in a case titled as
Shashi Kumar Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam
and another, 2005 (1) SCT 576 relying in turn on
another Division Bench of Madras High Court has
held that the terms honourable acquittal or fully
exonerated unknown in the Criminal Jurisprudence.
His Lordship S.S.Nijjar, J. (as he then was of this
Court) speaking for the Division Bench observed as
below:-
7. In any event, the terms "honourable acquittal"
or "fully exonerated" are unknown in the Code of
Criminal Procedure or in Criminal Jurisprudence.
These terms came up for consideration before a
Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the
case of Union of India Vs. Jayaram, AIR 1960
Madras 325. Rajammannar, C.J. Delivering the
judgment of the Division Bench observed as
under:-
There is no conception like "honourable
acquittal" in Criminal Procedure Code The
onus of establishing the guilt of accused is on
the prosecution, and if it fails to establish the
guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused
is entitled to be acquitted.
Clause (b) of Article 193 of the Civil Service
Regulations which says that when a
Government servant who was under
suspension is honourably acquitted, he may
be given the full salary to which he would
have been entitled if he had not been
suspended applies only to the case of
departmental Inquiry.
(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 10:35:31 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51372] (3 of 4) [CW-12454/2025]
Where the servant was suspended because
there was a criminal prosecution against
him, and he was acquitted therein, and
reinstated he is entitled under the general
law, to the full pay during the period of his
suspension. To such a case Article 193(b)
does not apply."
8. The aforesaid judgment of the Madras High
Court was considered and followed by this Court
in the case of Jagmohan Lal Vs. State of Punjab
through Secy, to Punjab Govt. Irrigation and
others, AIR 1967 (54) Punjab and Haryana 422
(punjab). In that case, on acquittal, the
petitioner was reinstated in service, buthis period
of suspension was not treated as the period
spent on duty. He had, therefore, filed writ
petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India claiming that he was
entitled to full pay and allowances for the period
of his suspension. Considering the impact of
Rules 7.3,7.5 and 7.6 of the Punjab Civil Services
Rules Vol.I Part-1, it was observed as follows:-
(2) XXX XXX XXX
The interpretation which has been put by the
Government on the rule is incorrect. The blame
which attached to the petitioner was that there
was a criminal charge against him under which
he was standing his trial. The moment he is
acquitted of the charge, he is acquitted of the
blame. In criminal law, the Courts are called
upon to decide whether the prosecution has
succeeded in bringing home the guilt to the
accused. The moment the Court is not satisfied
regarding the guilt of the accused, he is
acquitted. Whether a person is acquitted after
being given a benefit of doubt or for that
reasons, the result is that his guilt is not proved.
The Code of Criminal Procedure does not
contemplate honourable acquittal. The only
words known to the Code are 'discharged' or
'acquitted'. The effect of a person being
discharged or acquitted is the same in the eyes
of law. Since, according to the accepted notions
of imparting criminal justice, the Court has to be
satisfied regarding the guilt of the accused
(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 10:35:31 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51372] (4 of 4) [CW-12454/2025]
beyond a reasonable doubt, it is generally held
that there being a doubt in the mind of the
court, the accused is acquitted.
I am, therefore, quite clear in my mind
that the intention underlying Rule 7.5 can be no
other except this" the moment the criminal
charge on account of which an officer was
suspended fails in a court of law, he should be
deemed to be acquitted of the blame. Any other
interpretation would defeat the very purpose of
the rule. It is futile to expect a finding of either
honourable acquittal or complete innocence in a
judgment of acquittal. The reason is obvious;
the criminal courts are not concerned to find the
innocence of the accused. They are only
concerned to find whether the prosecution has
succeeded in proving beyond a reasonable doubt
the guilt of the accused."
4. The petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment on the
post of Junior Assistant and the alleged FIR is relating to Section
498-A. The allegation in the FIR has nothing to do with the post
for which the petitioner is seeking appointment. Further, the
petitioner is already acquitted in the said criminal case. Therefore,
the respondents cannot withhold the appointment of the
petitioner.
5. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The action
of withholding the appointment of the petitioner is set aside. The
respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner on the post for
which he was selected on compassionate ground. The said
exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of this order.
6. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
245-BhumikaP/-
(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 10:35:31 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
