The suitability of reinstatement following dismissal for misconduct, contingent on criminal conviction and statutory rules.

JUDGMENT :

Jagmohan Bansal, J.

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of: -

i. order dated 18.12.2017 whereby he was dismissed from service;

ii. order dated 31.05.2018 whereby his appeal was dismissed; and

iii. order dated 04.05.2022 whereby his revision petition was dismissed.

2. The petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as Constable on 28.10.2000. He was implicated in FIR No.413 dated 15.12.2015 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 506 & 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Sections 25, 54 & 59 of Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. He was arrested on 08.02.2016. The department suspended him on 16.02.2016. He was awarded punishment of stoppage of five increments. He preferred appeal which came to be dismissed. He was convicted vide judgment dated 08.08.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra in the aforesaid FIR. He was awarded sentence. On account of judgment of conviction and sentence, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 18.12.2017 w.e.f. 08.08.2017. He preferred appeal against judgment of conviction. This Court suspended his sentence on 13.11.2017. He entered into compromise with the complainant and on the basis of compromise, this Court allowed his appeal and set aside judgment of conviction.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner stands acquitted because this Court vide judgment dated 21.04.2025 has set aside judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.08.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. As judgment of conviction and order of sentence stand set aside, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated. This Court while setting aside judgment of conviction has recorded prima facie finding that offence under Section 307 of IPC is not made out. As per judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab and others, 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 14157 and Ishwar Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 2011 SCC OnLine P&H 15653, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated as dismissal was based on conviction and conviction stands set aside.

4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

5. From the perusal of impugned orders, it is evident that petitioner was dismissed from service on account of his conviction by Trial Court vide judgment dated 08.08.2017. He was awarded punishment of 10 years under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and 3 years under Section 325 IPC. After conviction, he preferred appeal before this Court and during the pendency of appeal, he entered into compromise with the complainant. In view of compromise, this Court vide judgment dated 21.04.2025 passed in CRA-S-3108-SB-2017 allowed appeal of the petitioner and set aside judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The relevant extracts of judgment dated 21.04.2025 passed by this Court read as: -

'This Court finds force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants that prima facie no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out as the complainant, namely, Dharambir, has sustained a fracture to the third metacarpal bone in his left hand which at most constitutes an offence under Section 325 of IPC. Further, the FIR (supra) was registered in the year 2015 and ten years have passed. It is pertinent to note that both the accused and the complainant as well as the injured party, are family members. The alleged incident occurred during a marriage function and as a result, a compromise has been effected between the parties. Once it is established that no offence under Section 307 of the IPC i.e. attempt to murder, is prima facie made out, there is no legal impediment in quashing the FIR on the grounds of compromise. The injuries sustained as proved by PW-18 on the basis of X-ray report only substantiate a case under Section 325 of IPC. In view of the categoric medical e