Back
1992 Supreme(SC) 693
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SAGIR AHMAD
VERSUS
Union of India
DECIDED ON: September 24, 1992
Acquittal in a criminal case entitles the individual to reinstatement in service if the termination was based on the criminal case.
Headnote:
Termination - Casual Labourer - Reinstatement after Acquittal
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a casual laborer in the Income Tax department, was terminated from service due to his involvement in a criminal case and subsequent arrest. Despite being acquitted, the department refused to reinstate him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination was based on the appellant's involvement in a criminal case, and since he was acquitted, he was entitled to be reinstated in service. The court directed the respondents to reinstate the appellant but ruled that he would not be entitled to back wages.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant, as a casual laborer, had the right to be reinstated after being acquitted in a criminal case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the termination of the appellant's service was based on his involvement in a criminal case, and since he was acquitted, reinstatement was the natural consequence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal, and directed the respondents to reinstate the appellant in service without awarding back wages.
JUDGMENT
KULDIP SINGH, J.
( 1 ) SPECIAL leave granted.
( 2 ) THE appellant joined service as casual labourer in the Income Tax department on 1-9-1979. He was involved in a criminal case and as a consequence he was arrested on 17-4-1985. By an order dated 18-4-1985 his services were terminated. The Department informed the appellant by the letter dated 26-8-1985 that his services were terminated because of his involvement in a criminal case and his consequent arrest by the police. The appellant was tried on the charges under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and also under Sections 5/6 Explosives Act. The appellant was, however, acquitted by the 2nd Additional chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra by his judgment dated 14-1-1992. Even after acquittal the Department refused to reinstate him in service. The appellant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal but his application was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of delay.
( 3 ) MR N. N. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that the appellant was working as a casual labourer and as such he had no right to hold the post. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant argues that the appellant worked for five and a half years and had become entitled to the status of a temporary employee.
( 4 ) IT is no doubt correct that the appellant having worked as casual labourer for over a period of five years had no right to hold the post but his services were not terminated on the ground that his work was unsatisfactory. The termination was on the ground that the appellant was involved in a criminal case. He, having been acquitted in the criminal case the natural consequence would be that he is entitled to be reinstated in the service. We allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal and direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant in service. In the facts and circumstances of this case we direct that the appellant shall not be entitled to back wages. The period of absence shall, however, be treated for the purposes of continuity in service as casual labourer and for whatever benefits which may enure to him in the service. We set aside the order of the Tribunal and allow the appeal with no order as to costs.
