The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a special appeal filed by the State against the order of the Single Judge concerning termination of a government employee. The Court upheld the decisions of the Labour Court and the Single Judge, emphasizing that termination based solely on the pendency of a criminal case cannot survive once the employee is acquitted. The Court observed that reinstatement is justified when the termination is found to be unsupported by law.
The respondent, employed as a Multi-Purpose Worker under the Department of Medical & Health, Bhilwara, was arrested in connection with an FIR arising from a family dispute. She was in judicial custody for a few days, after which she was released on bail. Upon reporting to resume her duties, the department declined her request and subsequently terminated her services citing her absence during judicial custody. Aggrieved, the respondent raised an industrial dispute.
During the pendency of these proceedings, she was acquitted of all charges by the competent criminal court. The Labour Court quashed the termination and directed reinstatement on the same contractual terms, which was later upheld by the Single Judge with minor modifications related to back wages and notional benefits. The State challenged this order through the present special appeal.
The Additional Advocate General representing the State contended that mere acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle an employee to reinstatement or service benefits unless the termination is perverse or unlawful. He argued that the termination was based on the FIR and therefore justified.
On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order, asserting that both the Labour Court and the Single Judge had carefully examined the material on record and concluded that the termination, being solely due to the pendency of a criminal case, lost its basis after the acquittal. He emphasized that no independent material existed to sustain the termination and that the findings of the lower forums were legally sound.
The Court noted, “The very foundation of the termination order dated 17.10.2002 rested upon the pendency of a criminal case against respondent No.1. Once the respondent stood acquitted by a competent criminal court vide judgment dated 03.12.2011, the basis of such termination ceased to exist.” The Court further observed that the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and the Single Judge were well reasoned, supported by material on record, and free from any perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference.
After considering the submissions and the factual matrix, the High Court dismissed the special appeal, thereby upholding the order of the Single Judge and the reinstatement of the respondent.
Case Title: The State Of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Smt. Manju Berwa & Anr.
Case No.: D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1281/2025
Coram: Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Justice Anuroop Singhi
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. N. S. Rajpurohit, AAG
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Saurabh Maheshwari, Devan Maheshwari
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
