Once Officer's Conviction Is Quashed, Employer Can't Check If Acquittal Was Honorable Before Considering Reinstatement: Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court has held that an acquittal is sufficient for considering reinstatement of an official earlier dismissed invoking Rule 19 Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules where only disqualification is conviction, and the authority cannot look into whether the acquittal was honorable or not. Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification,...
Rajasthan High Court has held that an acquittal is sufficient for considering reinstatement of an official earlier dismissed invoking Rule 19 Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules where only disqualification is conviction, and the authority cannot look into whether the acquittal was honorable or not.
Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules provides for a special procedure for taking disciplinary action without conducting a full inquiry. The employer has the authority to impose penalties which are allowable under Rules 16, 17, and 18 of the Rules of 1950 upon conviction on criminal charges by the competent Criminal Court.
Justice Munnuri Laxman in his order said:
"Coming to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1950, it is the provision under which the order of dismissal was passed in the present case on account of conviction in a criminal case. The action under Rule 19 is not based on any independent assessment of evidence, but solely on the fact of conviction, which enables the disciplinary authority to impose a penalty as permissible under the Rules. The power to dismiss or impose a penalty under Rule 19 is based only on the disqualification arising out of conviction. If such disqualification is subsequently removed, the authorities are required to re-examine their decision to reinstate the petitioner into service.
At that situation, the respondent authorities have no authority to examine whether the acquittal is honourable or doubtful, as the exercise of power under Rule 19 is based on the disqualification arising from conviction. Once the conviction is set aside by acquittal, they have to examine only whether the disqualification survives or not. Such examination of honourable acquittal is relevant only in cases involving parallel proceedings, which is not the case here. Therefore, the plea of the respondents that they are entitled to assess the judgment of acquittal to determine whether it is honourable or doubtful for the purpose of reinstatement is liable to be rejected".
The court said that examination of honourable acquittal was relevant only in cases involving parallel proceedings.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by an employee challenging his order of dismissal, and seeking directions for his reinstatement.The petitioner was dismissed from services based on his conviction in a criminal case, under Rule 19 of the 1950 Rules. Subsequently, the appellate court set aside the conviction and the petitioner was acquitted.
Based on this acquittal, the petitioner approached the respondents for his reinstatement. However, no action was taken by the department. Hence, the petition was filed before the Court.
It was the case of the respondents that they had the right to examine whether the acquittal was honourable or doubtful. It was submitted that the acquittal did not result in automatic reinstatement.
It was argued by the petitioner that since his dismissal was based on his conviction, once the conviction was set aside, the respondents had no authority to consider whether the acquittal was honourable or on benefit of doubt.
After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted certain situations in which the relevance of honourable or doubtful acquittal could be seen. The Court opined,
“There may be instances of drawing parallel proceedings where the allegations are common in both departmental and criminal proceedings. Part from that the appointing/ disciplinary authority, instead of initiating independent departmental proceedings parallel to criminal proceeding, may also place the employee under suspension and wait for the judgment of the Criminal Court, or may wait for the judgment without suspending the employee or initiating any departmental proceedings.”
In this background, the Court directed the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement, without considering whether the acquittal was honourable or doubtful.
Title: Rohitashva v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 178