Upon acquittal in a criminal case, an employee dismissed solely due to a prior conviction is entitled to a reconsideration of the dismissal. The employer cannot deny reinstatement by questioning the 'honourable' nature of an acquittal when the penalty was based solely on the criminal conviction.

ORDER :

MUNNURI LAXMAN, J.

1. On the request and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the present writ petition is taken up and heard for final disposal at the admission stage.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned suspension order dated 12.02.2019 (Annex.1) and the impugned order of dismissal dated 25.02.2019 (Annex.2), and also consequentially sought directions to reinstate the petitioner to the post which he was occupying prior to his dismissal.

3. The facts disclose that initially, the petitioner was suspended by the order dated 12.02.2019 on coming to know of the conviction of the petitioner by the trial Court where the criminal proceedings were pending against him. Subsequently, vide order dated 25.02.2019, the petitioner was dismissed from the service on the ground of his conviction in a criminal case by invoking the powers under Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1950’).

4. It appears that the petitioner preferred an appeal challenging his conviction and sentence in the criminal case. The Appellate Court, vide order dated 28.02.2019, acquitted the petitioner of the criminal charges. Subsequent to the acquittal, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities and requested them to reinstate him in light of the order passed by the Appellate Court acquitting him of the criminal charges.

5. The judgment of the Appellate Court along with the representation was submitted on 07.03.2019, and later another representation was submitted on 12.03.2019. When no action was taken, the present writ petition was filed challenging the impugned suspension and dismissal orders.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the dismissal of the petitioner was on the basis of his conviction in a criminal case, and once the conviction is set aside by the Appellate Court and he is acquitted, the respondent authorities are required to recall or revoke the dismissal order, and the petitioner shall be reinstated. The respondent authorities have no authority to consider whether the acquittal is honourable or on benefit of doubt in order to reinstate the petitioner.

7. It is also his contention that Circular No. F.9(7) Karmik/A-III/ 75 of the State Government, issued on 24.04.1990, clearly requires the respondent authorities to consider the judgment of acquittal and take necessary steps to revoke the order of dismissal or removal. The respondent authorities kept quiet without taking any action thereon; therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner was terminated on the basis of conviction in a criminal case by invoking the powers under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1950, and he was subsequently acquitted. The respondent authorities are entitled to examine the judgment of acquittal to determine whether the acquittal was honourable or on benefit of doubt. He is entitled to be reinstated only if the judgment of acquittal is honourable; if it is a doubtful acquittal, he is not entitled to reinstatement. The substance of his argument is that acquittal does not result in automatic reinstatement, but the authorities have discretion to examine whether the acquittal is doubtful or honourable.

9. It is also his submission that the order of dismissal cannot be set aside for the reason that the impugne