Back
Rules Discharge on Pending Criminal Case Illegal, Awards ₹5 Lakh Compensation
In a significant ruling, the declared that mere pendency of a criminal case cannot justify the discharge of a public employee, ordering the to pay ₹5 lakh compensation to a former police constable for the illegal termination of his services.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu delivered the judgment in , setting aside the orders of lower courts that had dismissed the constable’s suit for declaration and reinstatement.
The Case: A Promise Broken by an FIR
Satpal Singh joined the as a Special Police Officer in 1991. In 2002, he was selected as a Constable in the . When he reported for duty on , he was denied joining because of a pending criminal case—FIR No. 159 of 2001 under Sections 324, 326, and 34 .
On , while the case was still pending, Singh was discharged from service. No conviction had been recorded against him, nor was he given any opportunity to defend himself. Later, in , he was convicted under Sections 324 and 326 . The appellate court modified the conviction, retaining only , and released him on probation under the . The appellate judge even observed that the conviction “shall not affect his service career.”
Singh then sued for declaration that his discharge was illegal and for reinstatement. The trial court decreed the suit in , ordering reinstatement with continuity but no back wages. However, the first appeal reversed that decree, and the dismissed the second appeal.
Arguments: Illegality v. Precedent
Appearing for Singh, argued that the discharge was based solely on a pending case, without any conviction, and that the were flagrantly violated. He stressed that the appellate court’s probation order directed that the conviction should not affect his service career, and that the State had not challenged that order. Therefore, the respondent-State was bound to reinstate him. In the alternative, he sought compensation for the wrongful termination.
The State, represented by , countered that mere release on probation does not erase the conviction, and cited precedents where this Court had held that a convict on probation can still be removed from service based on the conviction. The State contested any entitlement to reinstatement.
Legal Analysis: Discharge on Pendency Is Illegal; Probation Does Not Obliterate Conviction
The first addressed the discharge order. It noted that the appellant was discharged not because of his conviction but while the criminal case was still pending—a point admitted by the State.
“Appellant was discharged from service not because of his conviction on a criminal charge but merely on the ground of pendency of the criminal case. He was not given an opportunity of raising his defence. We have not been shown any law which authorises a public employer to either dismiss or remove an employee serving the police for more than a decade solely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case. The act of termination of service, in the circumstances, cannot be justified.”
The Court then examined the effect of . Relying on a long line of authorities, including and , it reiterated that:
“Mere release of a convict on probation under the 1958 Act does not wash away the conviction and even though benefit is given under the 1958 Act, the convicted person can be removed from service solely based on his conviction.”
The Court explicitly overruled the contrary view taken by the in , which the appellate court had followed, holding that it “does not lay down correct law.”
Compensation, Not Reinstatement
Despite finding the discharge illegal, the Court declined to order reinstatement. The suit had not challenged the discharge order directly, and the proper remedy in a civil suit for a contract of personal service is damages, not . Moreover, more than two decades had elapsed. To do complete justice, the Court invoked and directed the to pay ₹5,00,000 as compensation within three months.
Final Judgment
“The civil appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms.”
The thus allowed the appeal in part, affirming the illegality of the discharge but substituting reinstatement with financial compensation.
This ruling clarifies an important facet of service law: no employer can terminate a public employee merely because a criminal case is pending, irrespective of the later outcome of that case. It also reinforces that the beneficial provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act do not immunize an employee from adverse action based on the underlying conduct that led to the conviction.
