23 Yrs On, Rajasthan High Court Upholds Reinstatement Of Govt Employee Terminated After Arrest In Cheating FIR
The Rajasthan High Court upheld an order directing reinstatement of a woman government employee who was terminated in 2002 following her arrest in relation to a cheating FIR in which she was eventually acquitted. The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Anuroop Singhi was hearing a special appeal filed by the State challenging order of a single judge bench that...
The Rajasthan High Court upheld an order directing reinstatement of a woman government employee who was terminated in 2002 following her arrest in relation to a cheating FIR in which she was eventually acquitted.
The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Anuroop Singhi was hearing a special appeal filed by the State challenging order of a single judge bench that upheld the Labour Court's decision in which the State was directed to reinstate the woman (respondent).
The respondent was engaged as a Multi-Purpose Worker (Female) in 2000 whose services were terminated in 2002 following an FIR against her under Section 420 and related arrest. This termination was challenged before the Labour Court by raising an industrial dispute. During pendency of such proceedings, she was acquitted of all charges by the competent criminal court vide judgment dated 03.12.2011.
The Labour Court, vide award dated 08.08.2005, quashed the termination order and directed reinstatement of the respondent on the same contractual terms as existing prior to termination. This decision was challenged by the State before the single judge.
The single judge bench in its 14.03.2024 order granted relief to the State only regarding the back wages, however, directed it to grant all other notional benefits to the respondent. Hence, the State moved in appeal before the division bench challenging the single judge's decision.
It was the case of the State that mere acquittal of the respondent in the criminal case does not automatically confer any right of reinstatement onto her, unless the termination was found to be perverse or unsupported by law.
On the contrary, it was argued on behalf of the respondent that the termination was based merely upon the pendency of a criminal case, and when the acquittal took place, the very basis of the termination did not survive.
After hearing the contentions, and perusing the records, the Court held that there was no reason to take a different view from that of the Labour Court and the single judge.
"Upon perusal of the record and consideration of the factual matrix of the case, this Court finds no reason to take a view different from that of the learned Labour Court and the learned Single Judge. The very foundation of the termination order dated 17.10.2002 rested upon the pendency of a criminal case against respondent No.1. Once the respondent stood acquitted by a competent criminal court vide judgment dated 03.12.2011, the basis of such termination ceased to exist," the bench added.
Finding no perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference, the bench dismissed the State's appeal.
Case Title: The State of Rajasthan v Smt. Manju Berwa & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 2