A permanent employee cannot be dismissed without a regular departmental inquiry. Acquittal in a criminal case based on identical facts as the departmental action, especially with a finding that the alleged forgery did not occur, entitles the employee to reinstatement regardless of a pending appeal against the acquittal.

ORDER

By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, challenging the legality, validity, and propriety of the order dated 20.03.2012 (Annexure P/3) passed by Respondent No. 3, whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner further challenges the order dated 17.09.2024 (Annexure P/18), whereby the representation of the petitioner seeking reinstatement was rejected by the respondents. The petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned orders and a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits, including back wages.

The facts, as strictly discernible from the record, are that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Varg-2 on 18.08.2001. Subsequently, by an order dated 30.06.2008, the petitioner was absorbed/appointed as a permanent teacher. It is the case of the petitioner that an F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 902/2011 was registered against him at Police Station Kotwali, District Shajapur, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation levelled was that the brother of the petitioner had issued a false teaching experience certificate, which the petitioner utilized to secure his appointment.

Pursuant to the registration of the said F.I.R., the Respondent No. 3, vide order dated 20.03.2012, dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner contends that this dismissal was effected without affording him any proper opportunity of hearing. Aggrieved by the termination, the petitioner submitted a representation on 11.07.2012 to the respondents, asserting that the dismissal was unconstitutional. Further representations were made to the Commissioner, Ujjain, on 18.07.2012, and a legal notice was issued on 23.10.2012. Despite correspondence between the Commissioner, Ujjain, and the CEO (Respondents) regarding the pending representation, and a reply from the Commissioner dated 11.08.2014 stating that the matter was sub-judice, the petitioner remained out of service.

The criminal trial concluded with the judgment dated 28.03.2023 passed in S.T. No.73/2015. The learned Trial Court acquitted the petitioner of all charges. Crucially, the learned Trial Court opined that the certificate in question was not forged. Following the acquittal, the petitioner submitted representations dated 24.04.2023, 07.07.2023, and 31.07.2023 seeking reinstatement. When no action was taken, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No. 896/2024. This Court, vide order dated 11.07.2024, directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation. In compliance thereof, the Respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order dated 17.09.2024, rejecting the representation on the premise that a Criminal Appeal (No. 10847/2023) preferred by the State against the acquittal is pending.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 17.09.2024 is illegal, perverse, and liable to be set aside. It is contended that the petitioner, having been honourably acquitted by the learned Trial Court, is entitled to reinstatement. It is strenuously argued that the initial termination order dated 20.03.2012 was passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner, being a permanent employee since 2008, could only be removed in accordance with the Rules. It is submitted that neither proper charge sheet was issued, nor was a regular departmental inquiry conducted prior to the termination.

Learned counsel emphasizes that the learned Trial Court in S.T. No.73/2015 specifically recorded a finding that the experience certificate was not forged. It is further submitted that the criminal case was an outcome of malice related to a contempt petition against the Collector. It is finally urged that th