The Himachal Pradesh High Curt recently comprising of a bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya while dismissing a appeal wherein the termination of the petitioner was summarily without adopting due procedure and was clearly in violation of the principle of natural justice remarked, “Notwithstanding the illegality found in the termination of the petitioner, this Court is not oblivious to the fact that serious allegations involving moral turpitude were made against the petitioner by none-else than a student of the school where the petitioner was a teacher. The petitioner was charged for offence under Section 354-A IPC.
Though, he has been acquitted, but it is trite law that mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to seek service benefits. Each and every case has to be adjudged on its own merits and the authority competent to adjudge is the employer. The relevant considerations are whether the petitioner has been acquitted merely on technical grounds or his acquittal is honourable. The purpose is to assess the desirability and suitability of the employee in the backdrop of allegations levelled against him and the acquittal recorded by the Court of competent jurisdiction.” (Sh. Raj Kumar V State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors)
Facts of the case
The petitioner rendered about 17 years of services in Indian Army and was superannuated in the year 2008. Petitioner is M.A. in History and also has the degree in Bachelor of Education.
After retirement, petitioner got his name registered with the Employment Exchange, Ex-servicemen Cell at Hamirpur. The Sub-Regional Employment Officer, Directorate of Sainik Welfare, Ex-servicemen Employment Cell, Hamirpur recommended the name of petitioner for appointment as Lecturer (History) in the Department of Higher Education. Respondent No.2 appointed the petitioner as Lecturer (History) on contract basis against the vacancies for Ex-servicemen of 2008. Petitioner was posted at GSSS Loharghat, District Solan, H.P.
His services were terminated following registration of a FIR against him under Section 354-A IPC. The complainant was one of the Petitioner's students. Aggrieved by the termination, the Petitioner approached the Court by way of instant petition. During the pendency of this petition, he was acquitted of all charges in the criminal case.
Contention of the Parties
Petitioner contended that his termination primarily on the ground that the same was in violation of principles of natural justice. No inquiry or other proceedings were conducted. The petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of being heard and hence the termination of the petitioner was bed in law. It has further been contended that mere registration of FIR against petitioner was not sufficient to terminate his services. Petitioner has also raised additional argument that now since the petitioner has been acquitted of all charges, his termination in any case is required to be revoked by the respondents.
The respondents contended that the action of terminating the petitioner has been justified on the ground that petitioner was a contractual employee. Since a criminal case was registered against him and he remained in custody, his termination was justified in terms of Clause-7 of the contract agreement.
Courts observation & order
The court noted that the question as to what should be termed as honorable acquittal has been considered in a number of judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The latest exposition on the subject was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Methu Meda (2022) 1 SCC 1. The relevant extract of aforesaid exposition can be gainfully noticed as under:
“The expression “honourably acquitted” is one which is unknown to courts of justice. Apparently it is a form of order used in courts martial and other extra judicial tribunals. We said in our judgment that we accepted the explanation given by the appellant, believed it to be true and considered that it ought to have been accepted by the Government authorities and by the Magistrate. Further we decided that the appellant had not misappropriated the monies referred to in the charge. It is thus clear that the effect of our judgment was that the appellant was acquitted as fully and completely as it was possible for him to be acquitted. Presumably, this is equivalent to what government authorities term “honourably acquitted”.
The bench observed, “The petitioner definitely has a right of consideration vis-à-vis his plea for revocation of his termination, reengagement and ensuing consequential benefits in view of the exposition made hereinabove. Irrespective of the fact that the termination of petitioner vide orders dated 13.01.2015 (Annexure P-12) and 17.01.2015 (Annexure P-13) have been held to be not in accordance with law, the respondents still have a right to consider the suitability of the petitioner for his continuance on the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) in view of the allegations levelled against him and the acquittal ordered by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Special Court (POCSO), Solan, District Solan, H.P. on 22.02.2022.”
The bench dismissing the petition remarked, “As a result, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement and continuance in service with consequential benefits, if any, in view of the observations made hereinabove and also dictum of judgment passed in Methu Meda (supra). Since the petitioner is out of job for the last about eight years, it is desirable and will be in the interest of justice in case the consideration order is passed by respondent No.2 within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment before respondent No.2.
The petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s)”
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source : https://miro.medium.com/max/700/1*smR6Qt26fhiJQB5LRfkWPw.jpeg
