Recently, in a matter testing the limits of employer discretion when criminal proceedings intervene with service tenure, the Rajasthan High Court held that an employee whose termination was rooted exclusively in the pendency of a criminal case is entitled to reinstatement once acquitted. The Division Bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Anuroop Singhi dismissed the State’s special appeal and affirmed concurrent findings of the Labour Court and the Single Judge, holding that the State could not justify continuation of the dismissal after the criminal charges against the worker had conclusively failed.
The case arose from the termination of a Multi-Purpose Worker engaged on a fixed monthly honorarium under the Medical and Health Department. During the course of her engagement, a criminal case was lodged against her arising out of a domestic dispute, leading to her arrest and brief judicial custody. Upon being released on bail, she sought to resume duty, but the department declined permission and proceeded to terminate her services solely on the grounds of her custody in the pending criminal matter. She raised an industrial dispute challenging the termination, and during the pendency of those proceedings, she was acquitted of all charges by the competent criminal court. The Labour Court thereafter set aside the termination and directed reinstatement on the same contractual terms. The State questioned this relief in a writ petition, which resulted in a modification confined to back wages while affirming reinstatement. Dissatisfied, the State carried the matter in intra-court appeal.
The State argued that the Labour Court erred in quashing the termination and that an acquittal does not automatically entitle an employee to reinstatement or service benefits. It asserted that unless the termination order itself is shown to be perverse or unsupported by law, reinstatement cannot follow merely because the criminal case concluded in the employee’s favour. The State emphasised that the proceedings arose from an FIR directly connected to the respondent and maintained that the judicial custody and the circumstances surrounding the registration of the criminal case justified the termination.
The Counsel for the respondent supported the concurrent findings, submitting that the termination rested entirely on the existence of the criminal proceedings. After full acquittal, the foundation of the termination no longer survived. It was argued that there was no independent material to sustain the order of dismissal and that both the Labour Court and the Single Judge had correctly applied settled principles while ordering reinstatement.
The Court observed that, “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 Bench noted that the Labour Court and the Single Judge had rendered well-reasoned findings based on the material on record and that such conclusions disclosed neither perversity nor jurisdictional error warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction.
Hence, the Court affirmed that the termination could not stand once the criminal case had ended in acquittal, upheld the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and the Single Judge, and dismissed the State’s special appeal.
Case Title: The State Of Rajasthan and Anr. Vs. Manju Berwa and Anr.
Case No: D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1281/2025
Coram: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anuroop Singhi
Advocate for Appellant: AAG N. S. Rajpurohit
Advocate for Respondent: Advs. Saurabh Maheshwari, and Devan Maheshwari
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
