Point of Law: Where services of an employee has been terminated only for the simple reason of his involvement in a criminal case and when ultimately he is acquitted and it is a clean acquittal, the stigma attached to him goes away and, therefore, he is liable to be reinstated in service.

JUDGMENT :

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

Heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned counsel for the writ appellants. Also heard Ms. S. Nazneen, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No.1 and Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned standing counsel, Education (Higher) Department, appearing for the respondent No.2.

2. This writ appeal has been filed by the appellants, who are the respondents before the learned Single Judge, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.01.2021 passed in WP(C) No.2179/2019 (Kushal Das -Vs- The State of Assam & 3 Ors.), by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition of the petitioner (private respondent No.1 before this Court) and has directed for his reinstatement in service.

3. The brief background of the case is as follows.

The writ petitioner/private respondent No.1 was appointed as LDA-cum-Typist in the Board of Secondary Education (SEBA), Assam on 12.05.1998. While in service, his marriage was solemnized on 02.05.2008 but after four months of the marriage, his wife allegedly committed suicide on 18.09.2008. Thereafter, accusing the writ petitioner and his family members, an FIR was filed by the father of the deceased before the Noonmati Police Station, which was registered as Noonmati Police Station Case No.298/2008, inter alia, under Section 304B IPC, i.e. dowry death, read with Section 34 IPC. The trial Court vide judgment and order dated 26.09.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.266(K)/2009 convicted the writ petitioner under Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

Meanwhile, as the FIR was filed and the writ petitioner was under arrest, he was suspended from service vide order dated 24.09.2008, although no departmental proceeding was initiated against him. He remained suspended during all this period and after he was convicted by the trial Court, the Department terminated his services on 23.11.2012. In the meantime, the writ petitioner filed an appeal being Crl. Appeal No.222/2012 against his conviction before this Court and this Court ultimately acquitted him vide judgment and order dated 11.01.2018. The learned Judge after appreciating the entire evidences of the prosecution and the forensic and other evidences came to the conclusion that it was a case of suicide by hanging. There were no injuries on the body of the deceased except the ligature mark which also suggested that it is a case of hanging. Further, the cruelty, demand of dowry, torture, etc., has not been proved by the prosecution and consequently the learned Judge came to the conclusion, which is recorded in Paragraphs 32, 33 and 34 of the judgment and order dated 11.01.2018, which read as under:-

“32. Thus, all these facts and circumstances speaks loud and clear that prosecution has failed to establish the factum of the victim being subjected to cruelty and harassment for or in connection with demand of any dowry. The testimony of PW 8, being a close neighbor, that he never came across any quarrel between the victim and her husband during the short span of their conjugal life and the testimony of PW 4 that relationship between the victim and the husband was cordial, further create doubt about the prosecution case with regard to the victim being subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused/appellants.

33. In order to convict a person for a serious criminal offence like dowry death, prosecution is obliged to proved beyond reasonable doubt of each and every element and ingredient constituting the offence. Even if any of the essential ingredient is found absent, the offence cannot be held to be completed and the accused cannot be convicted in absence of proving all the essential ingredients constituting the offence. In the instant case, although prosecution has been able to prove, that the death of the victim occurred within 7 years of marriage, prosecution evidence is found to be grossly inadequate to establish the other vital ingredients to attract section 304-B